ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Inward Investment (North-west)

Mark Menzies: What steps he plans to take to encourage inward investment to the north-west.

Mark Prisk: UK Trade & Investment works with local partners to support inward investors, and in 2008-09 it helped to create or safeguard more than 10,000 jobs in the north-west. The Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year, which will provide more detail on how inward investment can best be supported by UKTI and the Government as a whole.

Mark Menzies: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that many businesses in Fylde will welcome his response. In his recent speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Britain was open for business. Can the Minister give an example of a business that is taking that on board?

Mark Prisk: That is an excellent question; let me give an example. The Chancellor's decision to simplify and reduce corporate tax rates will directly help to attract more investment. Indeed, by 2014, this country will have the lowest corporation tax rates of any major western country. That is good for investment and good for jobs.

Derek Twigg: Is the Minister aware of the huge Mersey Gateway project in my constituency to build a second bridge across the Mersey? Independent examination shows that it would probably create 4,000 to 5,000 new jobs as well as hundreds of construction jobs. Will he remind the Transport Secretary of the importance to inward investment and jobs of that project, which is currently postponed, pending review?

Mark Prisk: I am more than happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The hon. Gentleman is right that in order to encourage investment we need to look at longer-term projects, and investment is an important part of that.

Gordon Henderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are constituencies in the south-east that face economic and regeneration challenges as great as those elsewhere in the country? Will he-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that the question specifically relates to the north-west and that although other parts of the country might share similar concerns, they are not relevant to this question. We all get used to these things; I have made these mistakes myself, I assure him.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Minister will know that businesses in the north-west are very concerned about the loss of investment that could result from the abolition of the Northwest Regional Development Agency. Will he answer a question that I asked a few weeks ago? Is the £1 billion of additional growth money from the regional growth fund in addition to or instead of money that has already been allocated to RDAs and local authorities for economic growth?

Mark Prisk: The regional growth fund is entirely separate from the RDA changes. We are keen to strengthen local economies, hence our move on local enterprise partnerships, but the regional growth fund will bring £1 billion to the hon. Lady's region and the other selected regions. It will start in 2011 and I think it is good news.

Business Support (Wales)

Jonathan Edwards: When he last met the Deputy First Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government to discuss policy to support businesses in Wales.

Mark Prisk: As I gallop to Wales from the north-west, let me make sure that I give the hon. Gentleman the right answer.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to meet the Deputy First Minister to discuss business support in Wales, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, business support is a devolved activity.

Jonathan Edwards: I am sure that the Minister would like to join me in congratulating the One Wales coalition in Wales on reaching its third anniversary this month, with the Deputy First Minister's Department having developed innovative strategies such as ProAct and ReAct. The Department is also publishing, this week, its new economic renewal programme, which focuses efforts on improving business infrastructure, such as broadband provision, in Wales. Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the money that would have been spent for the benefit of Wales, through the independently funded news consortiums pilot, is released directly to the Welsh Assembly Government to help them to achieve their broadband objectives?

Mark Prisk: The economic renewal programme, which I have had an opportunity to look at, has considerable merit, not least because it moves away from the tinkering and meddling of the last Labour Government and towards infrastructure. Broadband investment is very important and the Ministers who deal with broadband will have heard his representations. The issue is important and we want to act on it promptly.

Sheffield Forgemasters

Clive Betts: What factors he took into account in deciding to withdraw the £80 million loan facility to Sheffield Forgemasters.

Vincent Cable: The decision not to pursue the loan was taken on grounds of affordability.

Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State withdraw the entirely false accusations that were levelled at Graham Honeyman, the chief executive of Sheffield Forgemasters, that he was not prepared to sell any shares in the company? The reality is that the loan facility went alongside a private finance package involving equity release. What Graham Honeyman and the workers, 65% of whom own shares in Forgemasters, did not want to do was sell the company off to an absentee owner, given that they had rescued it from an absentee owner and near-bankruptcy in 2005. Will the Secretary of State withdraw the accusations against Graham Honeyman and recognise that he has resurrected that company and that it would do even better in future if it had the loan alongside a package involving equity release?

Vincent Cable: The Government's decision has absolutely nothing to do with the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We regard Mr Honeyman and his team as having produced an excellent project. We have no criticism of him or the company. Officials in the Department are now working to try to help to achieve a private sector solution.

Anne McIntosh: I yield to no one in my admiration for Graham Honeyman, having visited Sheffield Forgemasters when I was shadow Minister following the floods that devastated the company. However, will my right hon. Friend explain why, of all the grants and loans issued by Yorkshire Forward, north Yorkshire gets less than the 11% share to which it would be entitled and-

Mr Speaker: Order. That is wide of the question. The short answer is no, Secretary of State.

Anne McIntosh: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. It is wide, and that is the end of the matter.

Clive Betts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I indicate that I would like to seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at a further date?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done so and that is perfectly in order.

Manufacturing Industry Investment

William Bain: What recent assessment he has made of trends in levels of investment by manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: In 2009, the volume of manufacturing investment in the UK declined by 21%, the largest annual fall on record, and it declined in 10 of the last 11 years. This Government believe that that trend can be reversed. In developing our plans to rebalance the economy, we are keen to ensure that we provide the best long-term environment in which manufacturing can grow.

William Bain: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he reflect on the comments from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the manufacturers' organisation the Engineering Employers Federation that the biggest beneficiaries of the Government's changes to capital and investment allowances and corporation tax are low-investment and high-profit firms-
	"Banks and supermarkets rather than manufacturers",
	as the IFS put it? What practical help can the Minister offer to manufacturing industry today?

Mark Prisk: I must correct the hon. Gentleman and give him the correct facts. We have had to reduce capital allowances to enable us to fund the corporate tax cuts, but the net result of the changes is that manufacturing-and not the industries to which he referred-will still be better off. Indeed, by 2014-15, it will be better off by £250 million per annum. I think that that is a very good policy, although I detect that the Labour party may now be opposed to it.

Lorely Burt: We accept that the coalition Government have put many good things in place to help industry generally, but I have a specific question about manufacturing. Will the Minister say whether the Government are planning any particular help for manufacturing to restore it to its rightful place, which is leading the world?

Mark Prisk: Indeed we are, and our plans include the changes to corporation tax that mean that manufacturing industry is better off by £250 million, the reduction of the burden of red tape and the removal of many regulators, and the £150 million that has been set aside to fund up to 50,000 more apprentices. The Government's stronger long-term approach contrasts with the pick 'n' mix tactics and the tinkering and meddling that we had from the last Labour Government.
	I remind the House that manufacturing investment declined in 10 of the last 11 years. That is the record of the Labour Government, and Labour Members should be ashamed of it.

Pat McFadden: I want to return to the issue of capital allowances. The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that they want to rebalance the economy, but the Budget proceeded with plans to cut £3.1 billion from capital allowances and the investment allowance by 2013. The IFS has said that
	"cutting capital allowances is not a good way to raise money because they are an efficient way to promote investment".
	In addition, the Engineering Employers Federation has said that the cuts
	"make the investment needed to rebalance the economy more expensive".
	Labour's Budget in March doubled the investment allowance for manufacturers, but this Government have cut that by 75%. We are all saying that we want to rebalance the economy, so how can the Minister justify these cuts of £3 billion a year in our support for manufacturers?

Mark Prisk: As I told the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) earlier, the net balance is that manufacturing will be £250 million better off. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the annual investment allowances but, even after these reforms take effect, the vast majority of businesses-over 90%-will still have all their investment costs covered by the Association of International Accountants. The key point is that the record of the Labour party is one in which manufacturing declined in 10 years of 11. We are changing that environment by taking the long-term approach. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of his record of investment down and jobs cut? Is he proud of that?

Further Education Funding

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the eligibility criteria will be for further education colleges for funding from the recently announced renewal and enhanced renewal grant schemes.

John Hayes: The additional investment in further education college infrastructure that we announced on 24 May will be used to support further education institutions to develop the best facilities possible and will be prioritised to support colleges that have yet to benefit significantly from the college building programme. As I announced on 21 June, the Skills Funding Agency has identified institutions that are eligible to apply for the additional funding and has issued guidance to those colleges on how they can apply for funding from both the renewal and enhanced renewal grants.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I warmly welcome the introduction of the funding, which will help colleges affected by the previous Government's moratorium on Learning and Skills Council funding. However, independent specialist colleges, such as the National Star college in my constituency, which train some of the most affected disabled people in the country, were transferred before the election from my hon. Friend's Department to the Department for Education. Such colleges look set, therefore, to lose out on the opportunity to apply for capital funding for the second time in a row. Is there anything my hon. Friend can do to deal with that unfair situation?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend has been a champion of National Star college, which does outstanding work for the learners he describes. I share his concerns. He is right about the transfer of responsibility. Nevertheless, because of the overtures and the strong case made by others, and my own commitment to learners with those difficulties, I have today initiated discussions with the Department for Education to see how we can move with coherence to a position where all colleges benefit in the way my hon. Friend describes.

Kevin Brennan: In fact, is the scheme not typical of the way the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been rolled over by the Treasury since the election? Can the Minister confirm that we invested more than £2 billion in our FE colleges and that the £50 million fund has been pilfered from his skills revenue budget and, therefore, represents a cut in future years, not an investment? He will want to be straight with the House about that after yesterday's debacle.

John Hayes: Speaking of debacles, FE capital funding under the hon. Gentleman's Administration was indeed a debacle, obliging Sir Andrew Foster to conclude that it was due to mismanagement. The hon. Gentleman knows that the FE capital that we have announced is in addition to the spend we will make in 2010-11 on capital in FE. It is time FE were given a new future, and it will be under this Government.

Post Office Network

Simon Wright: What plans he has to ensure the financial viability of the Post Office network.

Stuart Andrew: What plans he has to ensure the financial viability of the Post Office network.

Edward Davey: We have been clear that we will ensure that post offices are allowed to offer a wide range of services in order to sustain the network. We are working with Post Office Ltd to develop new sources of revenue, including considering the case for a Post Office bank.

Simon Wright: I thank the Minister for his response. He, like me, campaigned tooth and nail against the previous Government's mass post office closure programme, which proved so damaging to communities such as mine in Norwich South. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that over the next five years of this Government he will do everything he can to make sure there is no further post office closure programme?

Edward Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in his constituency campaigning against the closures proposed by the previous Government. This Government recognise the important social and economic role played by post offices in communities throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we have secured £180 million in the next financial year for the social network payment and why I give the House my commitment that I shall work night and day to avoid the mass closures of post offices that we saw under the previous Government.

Stuart Andrew: In addition, I handed in a petition to Downing street, with more than 5,000 names of people who were trying to save four post offices in our constituency. Sadly, it fell on deaf ears. Is my hon. Friend concerned that Camelot's proposed plans to allow bill payments through its terminals may adversely affect the 7,500 post offices that do not have such terminals?

Edward Davey: Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work campaigning for his constituents and their post offices. I must say that Camelot's proposal to provide commercial services through lottery terminals is still subject to the regulatory approval of the National Lottery Commission. If the commission consents to Camelot's proposals, Post Office Ltd will carry out an assessment of the impact on sub-post offices and we will take that into account.

Kate Green: I welcome the Minister's commitment to the continuation of the provision of postal services in a wide range of communities. Given the difficulty of maintaining counter and, indeed, banking services in our poorest communities, can he give us an assurance that, in ensuring that such services can be maintained in such communities, public safety and staff safety will be a paramount consideration in finding suitable outlets?

Edward Davey: The safety of staff and the public is always a major consideration as we go forward in modernising the network. I think the fact that the Government are committed to looking for new services and new ways of doing things, and to seeing whether we can increase the financial services that go through the network, will be widely welcomed. That will enable the network to be more financially viable and therefore to meet even better the concerns that the hon. Lady has voiced.

Russell Brown: The Minister knows full well that one of the determining factors as to which post offices remained open during the two or three-year period when we lost 2,500 outlets was the access criteria. Can he give the House an assurance today that we will not see those access criteria interfered or tampered with?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman can have my assurance that I am working very hard with Post Office Ltd to make sure that we have the new services that will generate the revenue, so that we do not have to see the mass closure programme that precipitated the access criteria that the hon. Gentleman's Government had to introduce.

SMEs

Richard Harrington: What assessment he has made of the contribution of small and medium-sized enterprises to economic recovery.

Edward Vaizey: Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy and will make a vital contribution to the economic recovery, through new start-up activity and through business growth. BIS is currently conducting a survey of small and medium-sized enterprises, which will further inform our assessment of the contribution of SMEs to the recovery.

Richard Harrington: On Tuesday, I visited the Queens Road area of Watford-an area previously of retail prominence-with Helen Lynch, a local community volunteer who is trying to revitalise the area. One of the main problems I saw was that many shops had shut down and were shuttered up. When I have tried to get people interested in taking up retail units in starting up a small business, one of the main problems facing them was the high level of business rates. I wonder whether the Minister with responsibility for small business, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), would agree to come to Watford with me so that we could discuss the issue on the ground with some local business people and other interested parties.

Edward Vaizey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that he does supporting small businesses in his constituency. I certainly think that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for small business would be delighted to visit them. We are looking at temporary rate relief for small businesses. I know that it is a key problem for them.

Christopher Leslie: Will the Minister do what he can to encourage and, through his own Department, support the venture capital investment so needed for small manufacturing start-ups? Not only is it a problem that the capital allowance has been reduced, but access to the necessary credit and resources is problematic. Will he conduct a review on venture capital availability?

Edward Vaizey: Under the Budget we have set up a new enterprise capital fund, into which the Government have put £25 million. We are looking for additional private funding, but I certainly recognise the importance of the venture capital industry and venture capital funding for small businesses.

John Thurso: SMEs offer some of the best potential for future growth, but the biggest barrier to that is access to finance-in particular, I am talking about the failure of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, because of the Catch-22 that it is the banks that SMEs apply to that say no. What can my hon. Friend do about that?

Edward Vaizey: We are expanding the enterprise finance guarantee scheme by an additional £200 million, and we understand that it will support some £700 million of extra bank lending, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problem of securing bank lending. We are due to publish a Green Paper on business finance before the summer recess. I hope that that will address many of the issues that are involved.

Ian Lucas: We on the Labour Benches welcome the extension of Labour's successful enterprise finance guarantee that was announced in the Budget. We are questioning what has happened to the "major loan guarantee scheme" referred to in the coalition agreement. Is that in fact the same thing as Labour's successful enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which the Tories and the Liberals have now extended in their own Budget?

Edward Vaizey: In our approach, we want to look at all the issues in the round, so one of the key aims of the Green Paper on business finance is to ensure holistic measures of business support.

Graduates (Employability)

Oliver Colvile: What plans his Department has to improve the employability of graduates.

David Willetts: We are committed to increasing employment by cutting the burden of national insurance on new businesses employing new staff in areas such as Plymouth. We are cutting corporation tax over the next four years. We are easing the burden of regulation. In addition, I have asked universities to provide public statements on what they do to promote employability, to encourage them to improve the job-readiness of their students and to do better at getting their students into internships, work experience and work.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he willing to meet me and the vice-chancellor of Plymouth university-the enterprise university-to discuss ways in which it might make greater commercial use of its excellent reputation in marine science research as well?

David Willetts: I have met the vice-chancellor of the university of Plymouth and corresponded with her when she praised the co-operation that she already had with my hon. Friend. Of course, I would be very happy to meet her. Those are exactly the kind of initiatives linking universities and business to promote economic growth that the Government are backing.

Paul Blomfield: In October last year, the Minister said:
	"At a time when the jobs market for young people is tougher than ever, it is far better to find them a place in education than to leave them languishing on the dole...whereas going to university will increase their qualifications and make them more employable in the long run."
	Will he confirm that that is no longer his view, in the light of the withdrawal of 10,000 university places?

David Willetts: In that statement, I announced my commitment to 10,000 extra places at university, when the then Government were planning a cut in the number of places at university. We have delivered those 10,000 extra places. There will be more places at university this year than the then Government originally planned, and we are proud of what we have achieved.

David Lammy: Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed a rise in unemployment next year and that the Association of Graduate Recruiters estimates that vacancies for graduates will fall by 7%, what will the right hon. Gentleman do to support graduates in what will be the toughest year on record to get employment?

David Willetts: I have here the forecast from the OBR, and it is an endorsement of the measures that the Government took in the Budget. It makes it absolutely clear that it expects total employment in the economy to rise from 28.89 million now to 30.23 million in five years' time, as a result of the decisions that the Government are taking. Of course, times are tough for students, but going to university and getting a degree remains a very good investment in people's long-term prospects for well-paid employment, and we will encourage universities to focus on maximising the employability prospects of their students.

FE Colleges (Capital Funding)

Charlie Elphicke: How many further education colleges will receive capital funding from his Department in 2010-11.

John Hayes: One hundred and sixty colleges, including 28 sixth-form colleges, will receive further education capital support totalling £407 million in 2010. In addition, a further £50 million will be invested to support those colleges that have yet to significantly benefit from the capital programme. We expect that extra resource to increase significantly the number of colleges that receive capital grant support, with potentially 293 colleges receiving capital support in 2010-11.

Charlie Elphicke: Will funding be available for Hadlow college's plans for Betteshanger business park, near Deal? The business park was created by the regional development agency, £18 million was spent, and it has been left empty. It would be great to bring it into use.

John Hayes: It is essential that my hon. Friend and the House understand that that resource is on top of the existing investment programme, which is supporting a large number of current projects. That resource will enable real investment, bringing genuine benefits to learners and enabling colleges to plan for the future. I do not want to be unkind to Opposition Members, but it is important to recognise the disappointment that colleges felt under the previous Government. The Foster report said that that was due to inadequate management information, poor monitoring, a poor long-term financial strategy, meetings that led nowhere and monitoring that was focused on the wrong things. Now, I do not want to be unkind, but that is not good enough.

Joan Walley: Given that we are where we are in respect of capital funding for colleges, will the Minister look very carefully at the urgent need for increased capital expenditure in Stoke-on-Trent and at whether we can apply for the £5 million to get investment in the Burslem and Shelton campuses? Our college has no reserves, and I need the Minister to address that urgently.

John Hayes: I cannot make promises about individual colleges, but I hear what the hon. Lady says-she makes a powerful case-and I will be happy to meet her with my officials to discuss that matter further.

David Evennett: May I welcome the Minister's response and his plans to give further education colleges more freedom? Will the new freedoms that he is offering extend to capital projects, to make it easier for colleges to get alternative sources of finance?

John Hayes: Indeed, and it is perhaps also important to let the House know that the Government money that is available will leverage in other moneys. We want to look at all kinds of ways in which colleges, enjoying the new freedoms that this Government are determined to give them, can invest in their future. By the way, I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of further education. I add that because he deserves that plaudit.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister accept my invitation to come and visit the College of North West London in Brent so that he can spread some of his largesse there?

John Hayes: My largesse is legendary, and I can hardly wait to visit. I would make one request-that there are tea and cakes when I arrive.

Small Businesses (Finance)

Michael Crockart: What recent steps he has taken to increase access to finance for small businesses.

Vincent Cable: The coalition is committed to ensuring the flow of credit to viable small and medium-sized enterprises. The emergency Budget contained several measures, including the enterprise finance guarantee, the growth capital fund and the enterprise capital fund. However, unlike the previous Government, we are addressing proactively problems in the banking sector before rather than after they irreparably damage the economy.

Michael Crockart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware that, in my constituency, some small businesses that have successfully managed to gain access to finance are now being prevented from using that, because a bank in which the taxpayer has a significant interest has scaled back its willingness to be exposed to joint liability with small, family-run suppliers? Will he agree to take time to meet me to discuss that?

Vincent Cable: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that problem, which is happening all around the country. As it happens, in his constituency, I believe that nine companies have taken up the enterprise finance scheme-654 companies in Scotland have done likewise-and have drawn more than £1 million from it, but I recognise the problem. Actually, I think I met the chief executive of the bank to which I believe he is referring last week. I am aware of the enormous frustration in many small-scale enterprises, and I will continue to pursue the matter.

Dennis Skinner: What help will the Secretary of State give to those small and medium-sized businesses that were hoping to take part in the building of 700 schools, including one in Tibshelf in my constituency? Does he not understand that public sector cuts equals private sector misery?

Vincent Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating two massively different issues. I have many responsibilities-this is a very big Department-but school building, mercifully, is not one of them. However, he raises the more basic question of bank lending. Of course, there is an enormous problem, despite very high approval rates through the banking system. I am discussing with the Chancellor how we can improve the supply of capital, and there will be a paper before the summer on the different streams that we can energise to get capital flowing into good companies.

University-based Research Funding

Ann McKechin: What plans he has for the future funding of university-based research.

David Willetts: During 2010-11, the Department will provide £5.7 billion in funding for science and research, made up of £3.9 billion, principally to the research councils, and £1.8 billion of research funding distributed by the Universities Funding Council in England. The previous Government delayed the comprehensive spending review, so budgets have not been set for future years. They will be decided this autumn as part of the spending review.

Ann McKechin: As the Minister will, I am sure, agree, we enjoy a world-class research base in our universities here in the UK, but stability of funding is crucial to that. I seek reassurance today that he will take that as a priority, especially for science research, which is so essential as a driver for our economy. Can he confirm whether the VAT increase, which will affect universities to the extent of £200 million, will be taken into account?

David Willetts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to a strong research base in Britain and in our universities. If the hon. Lady looks at the Budget, she will see that it contained, alongside the necessary VAT increase, imaginative proposals to try to help universities respond to that challenge.

Julian Huppert: Is the Minister aware that the decisions that individuals take to come to this country, leave this country and to stay and research in this country depend on how welcome they are made to feel here and how much funding is available over a long time scale? Will he commit to a 10-year prediction of how much money is likely to be available, so that when we are out of the current hole people will know that there is a rosy future ahead?

David Willetts: It is quite a challenge to make a 10-year prediction when we have just embarked on the comprehensive spending review for the next three years. I can say that we are committed to supporting research in this country. The challenge we face is that we inherited from the previous Government a commitment to reductions of
	"£600 million from higher education and science and research budgets".

EU Free Trade Agreement (Peru/Colombia)

Chris Bryant: If he will make representations to his EU counterparts to require that the proposed EU free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia undergoes ratification in each member state.

Edward Davey: This Parliament will have a chance to examine properly the free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia. We expect that member states will need to ratify the agreement formally in 2011, but we will confirm that when the final texts are issued later this year.

Chris Bryant: I do not know whether it is because the Minister is a Lib Dem rather than a Conservative, but that is a much better answer than I got to this question on Tuesday from the Minister for Europe. Can he ensure that that happens? There are other countries that would like to slip past the fact that Colombia has a poor human rights record. There are more trade unionists killed in that country than in all the other countries in the world put together, and an enormous problem with displaced people. It is therefore vital that this House gets to choose whether to sign up to that free trade agreement. Will he ensure that every other country signs up to that and, if necessary, use his veto?

Edward Davey: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave an excellent reply to the hon. Gentleman. In any event, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because when he was Minister for Europe he negotiated one of the strongest ever human rights clauses in the FTA with Peru and Colombia, and he deserves the credit on behalf of many people in Colombia. He will know that legal advisers are now looking at the draft text and will have to decide whether it is known as a mixed agreement or a union-only agreement. Our belief is that it will be a mixed agreement and therefore that not just the European Parliament but all Parliaments will have to consider it. That will create the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Universities UK

Charles Kennedy: When he last met representatives of Universities UK; and what matters were discussed at that meeting.

David Willetts: I meet Universities UK on a regular basis. I last met UUK representatives at their board meeting on 25 June when we discussed a range of issues facing higher education. With my right hon. Friend being the rector of Glasgow university, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State having been an economics lecturer there, I am of course impressed by the excellence of that institution.

Charles Kennedy: Well, that is very nice to hear. I hope that the Minister will visit, and we will make him feel extremely welcome. A guest lecture would not go amiss.
	Given the Government's policy of a cap on immigration, the Minister will be aware that Universities UK and many others across the sector are worried about its impact, as 10% of university staff across the UK are non-EU nationals, including 2,500 staff at the Scottish universities alone. What can he do with his colleagues in the Home Office to mitigate the impact of that policy on the tertiary sector?

David Willetts: We are working closely on this matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I think that we have reached a sensible way forward, which she announced the other day. Of course, if there are individual problems affecting universities in the operation of these controls, we would be interested to hear from them, and will discuss them with our colleagues in the Home Office.

Denis MacShane: The Minister will be aware that the United States spends 2.9% of gross domestic product on higher education. We spend 1.3%, which is below the OECD average. The previous Government took a brave decision on tuition fees, although it was very unpopular with my hon. Friends. May I invite the Minister to take equally unpopular decisions on university finance, perhaps to introduce a graduate tax or lift some of the charges that universities can make? We must get more money into our universities.

David Willetts: That is why, of course, the Browne review was set up on a cross-party basis-to look at these issues so that we can find a way forward that I hope will command consent on both sides of the House of Commons.

Science and Innovation Industry

George Freeman: What steps he is taking to support the UK's science and innovation industry.

David Willetts: We will encourage universities to work with businesses and enhance the effectiveness of the UK's innovation system to support successful business innovation. The coalition agreement made it clear that we are committed to refocusing the research and development tax credit on high-tech companies, small firms and start-ups, as recommended by Sir James Dyson. We are considering the other recommendations in his report.

George Freeman: May I say how nice it is to see such a heavyweight business and finance team on the Front Bench? I would also like to declare an interest as someone who has had a career in business before coming to the House. Does the Minister agree that, in order to unlock the significant economic potential of our science and research base, instead of scattering money to the four corners of the kingdom, as the previous Government tended to do, we should focus our money on those centres that have a demonstrable track record in commercialising technology, such as the excellent John Innes research centre and the Norwich research park on the edge of my constituency?

David Willetts: The John Innes centre is a centre for plant science, but that does not mean it was a planted question.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the Minister, who always looks very comfortable at the Dispatch Box but is usually looking the wrong way, that he needs to look at, and address, the House as a whole?

David Willetts: I can assure the House that we are looking very carefully at the important issue of concentrating research funding in the areas where it will yield its greatest results. However, concentration means concentration of research in departments. It need not be done university by university.

Businesses (Health and Safety)

Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on health and safety regulations affecting businesses.

Edward Davey: No discussions have as yet taken place between Ministers and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in relation to health and safety regulations affecting businesses. However, Ministers met with Lord Young of Graffham on 1 July. Lord Young is leading the Government's review of health and safety laws and regulation, their implementation, the compensation culture and the associated litigation process.

Ann Clwyd: I hope that the Minister's bosses in the House can persuade him not to work night and day, as he said earlier, because that sends a bad message to a lot of people. Since the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the number of fatal accidents at work has fallen by 75%. Can he assure us that there will be no return to the bad old days?

Edward Davey: First, I am not going to apologise for working hard. My right hon. and hon. Friends are working extremely hard. However, I can assure the right hon. Lady that the UK's excellent health and safety standards will not be compromised as a result of this review. It will focus on unnecessary bureaucracy. I wonder whether she has spoken to businesses in her constituency-I have spoken to them in my constituency-who complain that, in order to comply with some of the complex bureaucracy of some of the health and safety rules, they have to employ consultants. We need to ensure it is easier to comply, but that in no way should undermine the importance of health and safety.

Small Businesses (Finance)

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent steps he has taken to increase access to finance for small businesses.

Mark Prisk: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart).

Jeremy Lefroy: Many small businesses, including those in my constituency, face much higher facility fees, even when they can get access to finance. Does the Minister agree that banks should not use the current situation to hike up fees, and will he take this up with them?

Mark Prisk: Indeed, we already are. I want to stress and put clearly on the record the fact that we are not willing simply to allow the situation to continue. Small businesses are crucial to our economy. We want to ensure that banks understand that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the banks. If we find that they are clearly pushing such charges up, we will make them come to see us in the Department and ensure that they understand that we are not happy and that we will act to ensure that they change their behaviour.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department's responsibilities include helping to drive growth, including by rebalancing the economy; building on the strengths of manufacturing, the knowledge industries, and the science and research base; helping businesses to grow by getting rid of excessive regulation and ensuring that they can access credit; being open to trade and foreign investment; and encouraging the development of a skilled and educated labour force.

Annette Brooke: Does the Business Secretary share my concern that, with the ending of the cheque guarantee card scheme next year, the demise of the cheque will be hastened, affecting very small businesses and, of course, the elderly? What action, if any, can he take in conjunction with his Treasury colleagues?

Vincent Cable: I do share my hon. Friend's concerns. As she knows, the decision originated last June with the Payments Council, which is an independent body. The decision was based on the fact that there had been a dramatic fall in cheque use, from 11 million a day in 1990 to 3.5 million. However, the Government recognise that there are large numbers of individuals, small companies and charities for whom the cheque is an extremely important way of making transactions. The Payments Council is an independent body, but we are trying to ensure that it has alternatives in place, so that people are not greatly disadvantaged by the change.

Pat McFadden: May I ask the Secretary of State about an important area for consumers and businesses-the future of mobile broadband internet? As he will know, it is growing exponentially, and is hugely important for consumers and businesses. Will the Government therefore put an end to the uncertainty on the issue that has been created since the election, and proceed with the statutory instrument on the planned future spectrum option, which can make the sector grow in the UK? That measure, which was put together by the Labour Government, would have ensured fair competition through caps on the amount of spectrum that could be bought by a single operator. There has been great uncertainty on the issue since the election. Do the Government accept that it would be wrong to have that option in place in a way that squeezed out competition, and will they therefore set out their plans?

Edward Vaizey: We are looking carefully at this issue, holding regular discussions with the mobile phone operators and involving other Departments and regulators. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Getting the issue sorted is an absolute priority for us, and we hope to make an announcement before the end of the summer recess.

Robert Halfon: Following the excellent plans for apprenticeships, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the local apprenticeship scheme run by Essex county council and Harlow college has agreed to place an Essex apprentice in my office from October? Will he also look into boosting apprentices in Whitehall and Westminster, and through Government contracts?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend has been a champion of apprenticeships since he arrived in the House and before. I congratulate him on his initiative in that respect. He will know that this Government have already transferred £150 million into the apprenticeship budget to create 50,000 more apprenticeships. I can announce today that one of them will be joining my office in Whitehall, and I invite other Ministers to do the same.

Jack Dromey: Can the Secretary of State clear up the confusion on the future of regional development agencies that has arisen out of conflicting statements? On the one hand, there is an apparent open-mindedness on the part of the Secretary of State; on the other, his counterpart in the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken a more hard-line and ideological approach. If there is a desire in any region, including the west midlands, for the retention of a strong regional structure-albeit with sub-regional arrangements, including local employment partnerships-will the Secretary of State be open to the retention of a strong regional development agency there?

Vincent Cable: There is absolutely no conflict, dispute or ideological perspective involved in this at all. We have made it clear that all the RDAs will be replaced by local enterprise partnerships. They will have a change in function from the current RDAs. We have also made it clear that if there is a will in a region to operate on a regional basis, a regional structure can emerge. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), will shortly produce a White Paper setting out how the regional process will develop.

Julian Huppert: I have been made aware recently of a number of cases of academic visitors coming to the UK, often for only a few days, and being denied visas for their entry. Will the Minister meet the Home Secretary to work out a new protocol for treating these people? Will he also meet me to talk through the issue, so that we can ensure that the reputation of British educational research is supported and not weakened?

David Willetts: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are both aware of the importance of these academic exchanges and visits. If there are any particular operational problems that my hon. Friend has encountered, I would be very happy to meet him to discuss them.

Karl Turner: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the real need of ports such as Hull to upgrade to cope with green energy production? Is the £60 million promised by the Labour Government still on offer, or does he dismiss it as a cynical Labour election ploy, as he has done with Sheffield Forgemasters?

Vincent Cable: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was an announcement in the Budget on commercial rates, which was a big issue for those ports. We are anxious to help the development of green investment and, as he will know, we are studying a proposal for the green investment bank, which could well become a vehicle for good projects in that sector.

Andrew George: I was listening carefully to the Minister's earlier response to the question on penalty charges applied to personal bank account holders who occasionally stray into unauthorised overdraft. Bearing in mind the Supreme Court's decision last year, which has resulted in a very unsatisfactory situation, does the Department intend to review the situation and, indeed, intervene to protect those personal account holders who find themselves in difficulty?

Vincent Cable: There certainly was a problem of serious overcharging, and it was pursued through the courts by the Office of Fair Trading. I am going to meet the director general of fair trading very soon, and I shall try to establish whether any action needs to be taken by the Department, as opposed to through the legal channels that have been pursued so far.

Yvonne Fovargue: What assessment has been made of the impact of front-line services in local citizens advice bureaux, such as my own in Makerfield, of the £2.5 million cut to Citizens Advice?

Edward Davey: I have met representatives of Citizens Advice England and Citizens Advice Scotland to discuss any difficulties they might have in implementing in-year cuts, as I have with all partner organisations of the Department. They have given me their assurance that they are managing, and they are working with my officials to try to ensure that those cuts can be made without hitting the front line in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

Brandon Lewis: Learners at colleges across England such as Great Yarmouth college have contributed something like £28 billion to our economy over the past 15 years. Does the Minister agree that those colleges need the support of our Government? What freedoms can we give them to ensure that they develop even further in the future?

John Hayes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to raise that issue in those terms, because it is through freedom that colleges will be able to innovate and excel. It is vital that colleges become more responsive to learner demand and to employers. That is why I have already announced certain important freedoms that they want and that were denied to them by the Labour Government.

Adrian Bailey: I think that there is cross-party consensus that major infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail and new nuclear and renewable energy schemes are essential not only for the future of our economy but for the greening of the economy. However, they often attract local opposition. There is huge concern within the business community about the proposed abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. What representations is the Minister making to ensure that the successor planning regime does not allow nimbyism, masquerading as local democracy, to strangle those schemes at birth?

Mark Prisk: What we are changing is the quango that will report on the final decision. We are not changing the streamlined system that will sit behind it-we think it is good; for business and for infrastructure-but we do think it important that when a final decision is made on a major infrastructure programme, it is made by a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box who is accountable to this House. I think that is an important principle; it will not undermine business investment and it is good for democracy.

Mark Pawsey: Last week, I joined students at Rugby high school in my constituency, who were taking part in a business partnership event, in which they learned the principles of running a business. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to encourage and support such entrepreneurs of the future?

David Willetts: We are strongly committed to enterprise education. People can learn how to be enterprising and learn the skills necessary to run a business. We are indeed committed to supporting such initiatives.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State will be aware that of all the important things for small businesses, the most important of all is that people have enough money to buy their products. In that light, what impact does he think the increase in VAT will have, particularly on the retail sector, which relies so much on people having the money to purchase products?

Vincent Cable: The Budget made it very clear that the value added tax increase is part of an overall process of reducing our enormous deficit, and it will lead to the strengthening of the British economy in due course. Those who criticise the VAT increase have to explain whether they are recommending that we make even deeper cuts in public spending instead.

Laura Sandys: Will the Secretary of State meet a group of seaside MPs whose constituencies face very specific challenges both in job creation and in new business start-ups? Could we further discuss how to boost domestic tourism, which plays such an important part in the economy of my South Thanet constituency?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady, if I may say so, is a very good advocate-possibly even a champion-of tourism and so forth.  [Interruption.] My largesse does not go quite that far. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues. It is important to recognise some of the special problems in particular locations, and start-ups are crucial in that respect.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Minister assure me that in the lifetime of this Parliament he will not cut the budget of a vital part of his Department, the companies investigations branch, which does vital work to protect front-line services and consumers?

Edward Davey: All partner organisations and all parts of Government have to look very closely at their budgets as we approach the comprehensive spending review. We will ensure that key parts of the Department, which I often refer to as "the plumbing"-the parts that uphold company law and competition policy and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, for example-get the resources they need, as they affect key areas of our economy.

Jake Berry: May I say that the announced 50,000 new apprenticeships are hugely welcome in my constituency, as Rossendale and Darwen has many young people working in the manufacturing sector? Given that an apprenticeship should be only the start of a journey of lifelong learning, what steps have been taken to encourage those who have completed an apprenticeship to go on to university?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes an important point about progression. It is important to have a ladder of training opportunity, going from re-engagement of those who have been disengaged from education, training and employment through to apprenticeships, and then to higher level skills, too. We will certainly do that.

Luciana Berger: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will go ahead with previous plans to introduce financial incentives of about £5,000 for people buying new electric vehicles?

Vincent Cable: No, I cannot confirm that because the decision is still awaited, and it lies with the Department for Transport. Only last week, I attended a major series of events with the automotive industry, which impressed on me the importance of this decision in order to promote electric power. I fully understand the rationale behind it, but I cannot confirm the decision today.

Gordon Birtwistle: The university campus at Burnley college has developed what it believes to be the most advanced wind turbine in the world. The previous Government were asked to fund further research on it, which they refused, so will the Minister visit this project and look at the possibility of helping to develop it further?

David Willetts: I always enjoy visiting universities, especially when they have enterprising ideas that bring forward business opportunities, so I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Secretary of State confirm what communication he or his Cabinet colleagues have had with Corus and Tata Steel Europe, since the announcement of the departure of the coalition Government's fiscal friend, Kirby Adams?

Vincent Cable: I met Dr Ratan Tata when he came through London. We have not had detailed discussions on the future of the steel project-we remember the consequences of the closure on Teesside-but we support the continuation of training for those redundant workers who require it and have not found their own way following redundancy.

Marcus Jones: The Minister may be aware that the selections for the UK WorldSkills squad are due to take place in anticipation of the 60th WorldSkills competition, held in London next year. One of the selection events is taking place in my constituency at the excellent North Warwickshire and Hinckley college during November. Will the Minister consider accompanying me on a visit to the college during that week, to see the excellent work that the students are doing?

John Hayes: I can see that I will be busy travelling the whole country. Of course I will-WorldSkills matters and celebrates success; there was cross-party agreement about that. I will support the event in his constituency and WorldSkills more generally.

Pat McFadden: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that points of order follow statements.  [Interruption.] Order. Somebody chuntered from a sedentary position that there was a point of order earlier. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is a considerable authority on these matters and knows perfectly well-it is helpful for me to explain this to the House-that one circumstance in which a point of order can come before a statement is when, in respect of a particular question, a Member is so dissatisfied with the answer that he or she signals an intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I explain that both for the benefit of the House and for those outside who are unaware of such matters.

Business of the House

Rosie Winterton: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 12 July will include:
	Monday 12 July-Proceedings on the Finance Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 13 July-Proceedings on the Finance Bill (Day 2).
	Wednesday 14 July-Motion relating to Police Grant Report, followed by motion to approve a Statutory Instrument relating to the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010, followed by motion to approve a European Document relating to the European External Action Service.
	Thursday 15 July-Proceedings on the Finance Bill (Day 3).
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 July will include:
	Monday 19 July-Second Reading of the Academies Bill [ Lords].
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 20 July-Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by proceedings on the Finance Bill (Day 4), followed by business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Wednesday 21 July-Proceedings on the Academies Bill [ Lords] (Day 1).
	Thursday 22 July-Proceedings on the Academies Bill [ Lords] (Day 2).
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 July will be:
	Thursday 15 July-A debate entitled "Reform of the Law of Defamation".

Rosie Winterton: May I thank the Leader of the House for the business and say how pleased we are to have him back, knowing his commitment to protecting the rights of Members of the House? Although he seems increasingly isolated in that quest, he remains our leading man. I use that term because, as it happens, it is exactly how he was described by  The House  Magazine, in a marvellous account of his rise to power and his duties as Leader of the House. It includes some fascinating reminiscences about the Thatcher years. For example, he says:
	"When we won power in 1979 we were less prepared than today."

Mr Speaker: Order. This is absolutely fascinating stuff, but it suffers from the notable disadvantage that it bears absolutely no relation whatever to the business of next week or the week after. I know that the right hon. Lady, who is a dextrous performer, will now speedily move on to matters of current interest, namely the business of the House next week and the week after.

Rosie Winterton: I certainly will, Mr Speaker. One of the matters on which I wanted to question the Leader of the House with reference to his duties was the "serious training" that he said shadow Ministers had been given in order for them to be able to move quickly to implement some of the policies in the coalition agreement. I think that that "serious training" explains the speed with which the Thatcherite cuts in public service are being implemented. However, the interview does not tell us whether the duties of the Leader of the House include arranging training for Liberal Democrat Ministers enabling them, for instance, to explain during next week's debate on the police grant report how cutting £125 million from this year's policing budget will not affect police numbers-especially given that the Liberal Democrat manifesto stated that there would be 3,000 extra police on the streets.
	Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister for Police explains in next week's debate what statistics the Prime Minister was using yesterday when he said that violent crime had doubled, given that the UK Statistics Authority has said that it is misleading the public to use anything other than the British crime survey as a measure of long-term crime trends? The survey shows that, in fact, there has been a 41% reduction in violent crime since 1997.
	May I also ask whether the "serious training" referred to by the Leader of the House involves training in how to make apologies? If so, I am afraid that the Education Secretary needs a refresher course. On Monday, he released his first list of schools that would no longer be refurbished or rebuilt. He released that list to the media. By Tuesday afternoon he had released a third list. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) raised the matter with you, Mr Speaker, and last night the Education Secretary was forced to come to the House to apologise. He arrived with a fourth list, but said he
	"would be grateful if hon. Members would ensure that any information they had that pointed to inaccuracies was put to me".-[ Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 492.]
	Naturally, Labour Members rose to the challenge and pointed out that Monkseaton high school in Tynemouth, which was listed as having been cancelled, had in fact been opened last year, and had been visited by the one and only right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) when he launched the Conservative local election campaign. That is completely chaotic, and suggests a hurried and unreliable process.

Peter Bone: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Rosie Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions for the Secretary of State, I am sure that the Secretary of State will listen to them.
	Will the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to come to the House and, as a minimum, publish the criteria that were used to decide which school building projects would be cancelled, so that parents and teachers can see for themselves whether their school building programme has indeed been cancelled by any kind of reasonable and fair process? That is a minimum; but the fact is that the Education Secretary should simply withdraw the list altogether, and think again about destroying the hopes and aspirations of at least 700 communities around the country. Surely it is obvious that this whole process has become discredited, as has the Education Secretary himself-not least because he keeps telling the House that funding had not been agreed for these schools. He continued to say that in the House even after the permanent secretary had issued a letter saying that it was categorically not the case.
	Finally, last week I asked the Deputy Leader of the House to place in the Library the Treasury paper on the 1.3 million people who were going to be thrown out of work because of the Budget. Neither that nor the advice given to the former coalition Chief Secretary on the future jobs fund has appeared. That meant that we had an Opposition day debate yesterday on jobs and unemployment with those two crucial documents withheld from us. How can the Leader of the House possibly justify that when the coalition agreement specifically refers to openness and transparency in government? Will he now place these documents in the Library as a matter of urgency?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions, and I hope that the  House magazine might one day carry an article entitled "Leading lady", in which she features. I got on very well with Lady Thatcher-so well that she appointed me to her Administration not once, but twice.
	On the police grant order, there will still be an increase in the resources available to the police even after that order, which will be debated next Wednesday. The right hon. Lady knows full well the reason for that order: in the words of the Labour Chief Secretary, "There is no money left."
	On crime, it is important that the actual crimes recorded by the police are used alongside the statistical analysis of the British crime survey. Indeed, that was the measure most often used by Labour Members when they criticised our record in government. We have quoted the only statistics that are available on recorded crime across the period, but I can tell the right hon. Lady that the Home Secretary has written to the shadow Home Secretary stating that we are reviewing how crime statistics should be collected and published in future, and we will make further announcements in due course.
	On the subject of apologies, both the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary have had the decency to come to this House and apologise when things have gone wrong. We have had no apology from the Labour Benches, however, for one in five young people being unemployed, and we have had no apology for Labour selling the gold at the lowest level for some 20 years, or for leaving us with the worst budget deficit in Europe.
	The right hon. Lady will have seen the question the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) asked about the school list, to which my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary replied:
	"It is my belief that the list we have placed in the Vote Office is accurate."-[ Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 492.]
	He went on to say that he understood that double-checking was now taking place within the Department. My right hon. Friend also set out the criteria used to make the decisions at some length in his statement on Monday, and he was questioned about them for an hour and a quarter. The right hon. Lady should remember, however, that the reason for the statement was the over-commitment of resources by the outgoing Secretary of State, who acted irresponsibly by over-relying on end-year flexibility when the resources simply were not there.
	We had a debate on unemployment yesterday, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), pointed out that over the next few years there will be an increase of 1.5 million in the number of people working.

Peter Bone: On Monday the House adjourned at 10.49 pm, on Tuesday at 2.48 am the following morning and on Wednesday at 8.13 pm. That is very good for holding the Government to account, but for Members who, because of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, have up to a two-hour commute home, it is not sustainable. May we have a statement next week on whether IPSA has broken parliamentary privilege by restricting the ability of some hon. Members to carry out their duties?

George Young: On the narrow issue of privilege, that is a matter for Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend will know the procedure that needs to be gone through if anyone asserted there had been a breach of privilege, but may I also say the following to my hon. Friend? Earlier this week for the first time we had a seriously late-night sitting against the background of the new constraints imposed on the House by IPSA. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members were seriously inconvenienced by what happened, and that is something that I and others propose to pursue in a dialogue with IPSA.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate in Government time on capital allocations following the Building Schools for the Future announcements, and possibly for two days, given how many hon. Members would wish to raise issues relating to their local schools? The list that was published yesterday still contains numerous errors in the Greenwich schools listed. A "Broadoak" school is listed as "Unaffected"-that is hardly surprising, given that it does not exist. The "University Technical College" is linked with Eltham Hill school, but Eltham Hill school is also listed separately. The Business Academy Bexley, which opened six years ago, the St Paul's academy, which opened in January, and Charlton special school, which opened in September 2008, are also all on this list. What criteria were used to produce this list? It is arbitrary. What account has been taken of the capital needs that will have to be met, such as essential repairs and improvements to electrics? If we do not have a debate, how can we get to the detail of what has produced this list?

George Young: I will of course raise with the Secretary of State for Education the hon. Gentleman's specific points about the accuracy of the list, but that contrasts with the need for the list. That need was set out in some detail on Monday, and Labour Members have not explained in any way where they would have found the resources necessary if they had wanted to go ahead with the BSF programme.

Nick de Bois: Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the appalling standards of commuter travel for many rail travellers in my constituency? Will he allow us to have the chance to press for wider local consultation given the upcoming local franchises?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a forceful case for a debate, and I see the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee in her place. May I also say to my hon. Friend that he will have the opportunity to raise the matter with Transport Ministers at Transport questions on 22 July?

Andrew Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and he has been a Select Committee Chairman. Can he explain to the House what the delay has been in getting the right order before us in respect of the Select Committee on Science and Technology? I understand that there is still a Conservative vacancy, and at least one Conservative Member from the new intake has come to me to ask how to get on the Committee. I directed him to the Whips. Can the Leader of the House ensure that the Committee is established as quickly as possible, so that we can have our first meeting next Wednesday?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I congratulate him on his post as Chairman of that Committee. If he looks at today's Order Paper, he will see that a large number of Select Committees have been nominated by the Committee of Selection. However, it was not able yesterday to make progress with five or six Committees. I have been in touch with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and I understand that he hopes to make very swift progress with the remaining Committees. I am sure that he will take on board the very helpful suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made about a vacancy.

Adam Afriyie: I very much welcome the coalition Government and think they stand a good chance of putting right some of the mistakes of the previous Government. I am a great believer in evidence-based policy making. It seems to me that the Deputy Prime Minister often asserts the "great demand" for constitutional change, so could we have a debate about the evidence base for those statements so that we can examine the root of them?

George Young: Looking ahead, I have to say that the House will be doing very little but debate constitutional change in the weeks ahead. There will be a debate on the Report stage of the Bill to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and there will be ample opportunity to debate constitutional change and reform in the weeks ahead. I hope that I have correctly understood his question.

Glenda Jackson: May we have an urgent debate-I stress the need for it to be urgent-on Building Schools for the Future? Following on from the question posed by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on the necessity for evidence-based decisions, may I say that what has become increasingly clear is that the Secretary of State for Education has never presented to this House, either in debate on in a statement, any kind of proof that his decisions were based on evidence, either of the economic need or of the educational need? Absolutely no detail has been provided, so one is left with the feeling that there is no Building Schools for the Future programme. This has caused enormous disquiet across the whole country, not least in my constituency. May I just point out to the Leader of the House that the people who are suffering most for the inequity and incompetence of the Secretary of State are our children? Our children are this country's future, so it behoves this Government to afford proper time to this House to examine whether there is indeed a Building Schools for the Future programme, because the Secretary of State has markedly failed to convince any of us.

George Young: I do not agree with the assertion at the beginning of the hon. Lady's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out very clearly in his statement on Monday the criteria that we used for deciding which projects would go ahead and which would not. He then answered questions for an hour and a quarter on those criteria. However, the hon. Lady will have a further opportunity next Monday, in Education questions, to pursue the matter.

Lorely Burt: May we have a debate on empty property business rates? In my constituency, Asda, having been denied building permission more than 10 years ago, has allowed the property to go to rack and ruin. It is a total eyesore for local residents, yet the Revenue apparently, I am told, owes Asda £2 million in back rates that Asda is allowed to claw back. That surely cannot be right. May we have a debate on that, please?

George Young: I understand the anxiety that the hon. Lady expresses. On 15 July, there will be Communities and Local Government questions and she will have an opportunity to make her point to Ministers.

Thomas Docherty: This morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), slipped out that the merchant shipping regulations on ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo will be delayed until next year following lobbying by Lib Dem and Tory MPs. This announcement has been met with horror by organisations in Scotland such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fife council and communities on both sides of the Forth. Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall next week or the week after so that Members have an opportunity properly to debate this matter rather than having it simply slipped out on a Thursday?

George Young: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. On 22 July, there will be Transport questions, but in the meantime I shall draw his anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and get a response.

Andrew Griffiths: This week, Toyota announced 750 job losses at its plant in Burnaston. That will have a devastating impact on families in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). I have already met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss what we can do to get those people back into work, but given that we have seen a 10% decrease in the output of manufacturing since 1997 and given that that decline has been three times faster than the decline under the Conservative Government of the 1980s, may we have an urgent debate on support for the manufacturing industries?

George Young: We shall debate the Finance Bill in the coming week, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, against the background of the very disappointing news that he has outlined, some of the measures in the Budget are designed to help manufacturing industry, such as the reduction in corporation tax over the next few years, which is designed to promote inward investment. I hope that those policies will result in a turnaround in the unemployment position in his constituency.

Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House press the Health Secretary and other Ministers responsible to come to the House and create a debate on the strategy to deal with obesity in this country? This is not just a question for England, because when I go around my constituency I am shocked by the amount of obesity that I see. We are all being abandoned by the Health Secretary and BIS, because they will not ban trans fats from processed food. They appear to have abandoned us to the processed food industry by abandoning the strategy against obesity in England. It is a very important matter because it is damaging the health of our constituents' children and bringing early death to our constituents.

George Young: Obesity is an important issue, although, happily, it is not one that either the hon. Gentleman or I would appear to suffer from. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that, where possible, he wants to work with the industry rather than against it. That is the background to the announcements that he has just made. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that this is an issue that, if possible, we should find time to debate. If we cannot, there will be an opportunity to raise it during Health questions.

Julian Lewis: I hope that I have not been called with reference to the last question, Mr Speaker.
	The Leader of the House worked his magic when asked for a full day's debate on the strategic defence and security review and supplied one about a week later. Will he work his magic again, following yesterday's statement on Afghanistan, and arrange a full day's debate on strategy in Afghanistan? Will he have a word with his counterparts in the other place, where there are many experts on this subject, so that they too might express their views on this extremely important subject?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the Government's intention that the House should be kept regularly up to date on the position in Afghanistan and, as he knows, there was a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday. It is our intention to carry on with that process and to have statements and, where appropriate, debates. I am sure that my colleagues in the other place will have heard my hon. Friend's request for business there-that is happily a responsibility that does not currently rest with me.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman may have had time to read the Law Commission report on the reform of ombudsmen. Will he tell the House his view of the MP filter, whereby referrals are made to the parliamentary ombudsman only through Members of Parliament? Does he support that situation?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whether our constituents should have to go through us to have access to the ombudsman or whether they should have direct access has been an issue for some time. There is a Select Committee of this House that has responsibility for the ombudsman. Before I opine, it would be very helpful if the Public Administration Committee, which is the right Committee, were to have another look at this and see whether we need to retain the MP filter.

Edward Timpson: Despite the record amount of money spent on our national health service in recent years, there are wards in Crewe and Nantwich where the life expectancy of men and women is still up to 10 years less than in neighbouring wards. May we have a debate on the issue of health inequalities so that these unacceptable disparities can be discussed and debated?

George Young: My hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House a very important issue, namely the very wide discrepancies in life expectancy according to where people live and their socio-economic background, and which this Government want to reduce. I am not sure whether I can find time for a debate in the near future, but the Chair of the newly appointed Backbench Business Committee will have heard his plea. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and see whether we can get a response for my hon. Friend.

Pat Glass: I was recently approached by the chamber of commerce in my constituency and told it was expecting a loss of 17,000 construction jobs as a result of public sector cuts. That was before what happened with BSF. May we have an urgent debate on the loss of public sector construction jobs as a result of what has happened with BSF?

George Young: I am sure the hon. Lady knows that under the last Administration there was a forecast reduction in public sector jobs. So far as employment is concerned, as I said a moment ago we had a debate about this yesterday and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), pointed out that it was forecast that there would be an increase of 1.5 million jobs over the next few years. I hope that some of those will be in the construction industry. In the first statement that we made on public expenditure, we put back in a sum of money for social housing. Housing is an important ingredient in our programme. I hope that as the economy recovers there will be more work in the construction industry, building the houses that our constituents need.

Philip Davies: Following the excellent comments by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the need to abolish council non-jobs, may I urge my right hon. Friend to grant a debate on this subject so that we can all give our suggestions as to which politically correct council non-jobs should be abolished? Will he ensure that it is a full day's debate, because I think that he will find that there are plenty of them?

George Young: It would be very sad if we had to wait for a full day's debate before my hon. Friend could supply the House with his list of jobs that could be reduced. My hon. Friend is an ingenious person and I am sure he will find an outlet for the long list that he apparently has detailing how money might be saved.

John Cryer: Following my hon. Friends' questions, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 399 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)?
	 [That this House condemns the Government's decision to cancel the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme for a number of schools in the London Borough of Waltham Forest; notes that parents, pupils, governors, teachers and other staff have often worked hard and valiantly under difficult conditions over many years; further notes that the BSF programme promised new buildings and vastly improved conditions for staff and students; and considers that this announcement will be a serious setback for education in Waltham Forest.]
	Aside from the issue of the veracity of the announcements in the various lists that have been released, another problem is the fact that this matter will affect some of the poorest and relatively poorest communities in Britain who have been looking forward to having new school buildings for many decades and who are now going to be let down. Rather than just receiving a statement from the Secretary of State for Education, we really need a full day's debate on this.

George Young: It is always open to the Opposition to use one of their Opposition days for a debate on this subject, but I repeat that the reason for Monday's statement was that, as the former Chief Secretary said, there is no money left and steps had to be taken to restore confidence in the public finances.

Robert Halfon: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Tenant Services Authority? Councillor Lee Dangerfield, the chairman of housing in my constituency, has received a letter from the TSA asking him to waste more money on needless inspection regimes and plans costing £70,000. Is that not an obscene waste of taxpayers' money when we need to cut our cloth according to the situation and give Harlow taxpayers value for money?

George Young: My hon. Friend might know that the role and functions of the TSA and the framework for social housing regulation are being reviewed. The review is informed by our commitment to reduce the number and cost of quangos and to cut unnecessary regulation and inspection, and it will conclude as quickly as possible.

Chi Onwurah: The Leader of the House might not have had time to read the report by the independent Work Foundation on the geography of the recovery and on coalition policies, but it clearly says that although current coalition policies might lead to some recovery in the south and in the services sector, they will not support job creation in the regions. Can we have an urgent debate on how job creation in the regions is to be supported and on what the coalition's policies for that should be?

George Young: That issue was covered yesterday to some extent. It was precisely to redress the imbalance between north and south that we set up a £1 billion regional development fund. I hope that the hon. Lady will encourage her constituents to apply for resources under that fund.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the development of high-speed rail services is vital for our national economy, depending on which route is chosen, there will be a significant impact on many local communities, including Hints, Weeford and Drayton Bassett in my constituency? Does he agree that we should discuss in the House the best mechanism, depending on the method and route chosen, by which to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and brownfield sites to minimise the impact on green spaces?

George Young: As a former Secretary of State for Transport with a real commitment to the railways, I agree that where it is practical so to do we should use existing track and routes rather than new ones. Where a new route is necessary, there should be the fullest consultation before that route is finally decided on.

John Spellar: Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is adequate time in the debates on the Academies Bill to discuss the way in which the Secretary of State for Education proposes to shower money on so-called free schools while drastically cutting money to schools in Sandwell, particularly Perryfields and Bristnall Hall in my constituency? There is also a question mark over Shireland. Is that proposal not an insult to the children, teachers and communities concerned and is it not a gross misdirection of resources?

George Young: I would not describe the academies programme in exactly the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to his question is yes, there will be lots of time during the debate on the Academies Bill for him to make his case and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State robustly to reject it.

David Nuttall: Will the Leader of the House please find time for a debate on the unfairness arising from the fact that Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Scotland can vote on matters such as education and schools that affect my constituents, but that I and other Members who represent seats in England have no reciprocal right to vote on matters affecting education in Scotland?

George Young: My hon. Friend might be familiar with a document that was published in the last Parliament by the Democracy Taskforce, of which I was a member, which addressed the West Lothian question. If he looks at the coalition agreement, he will see that our proposal to deal with this anomaly is to set up a commission to look into the issue and to report back with proposals.

Dennis Skinner: Following on from questions regarding Building Schools for the Future, is the Leader of the House aware that the list referred to the fact that Tibshelf school in my constituency would not go ahead but did not mention that Deincourt school in the neighbouring constituency of North East Derbyshire is due to be closed because the Tibshelf school was expected to go ahead? So, two constituencies are involved, there were plans for a Deincourt school replacement and the net result is that the ripples are still travelling as far as the Tory county council. What are the Government going to do about this? When are they going to sort it out? Why can Tibshelf not have that school?

George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in his place on Monday for Education questions when he can ask that precise question.

Dennis Skinner: I'll be there.

George Young: I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ready for him.

Paul Goggins: There has been considerable speculation in recent days that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to amend the civil service compensation scheme. Given the scale of cuts already envisaged, this is causing considerable additional anxiety to those who work in our public services. Will the Leader of the House arrange for Cabinet Office Ministers to come quickly to the House and set out precisely what the Government intend?

George Young: The answer is yes, because we will be introducing legislation to amend the civil service compensation scheme. In doing so, we will be taking forward policies of the outgoing Government that were unable to proceed because, on the application of the Public and Commercial Services Union, the High Court quashed the details of the scheme that was going forward. We need legislation to get around that. Our objectives are not wholly different from those of the outgoing Administration, namely to bring those in the civil service scheme into line with those in the private sector.

Jonathan Edwards: The Leader of the House will be aware that this week's second and final report of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales called for an immediate Barnett floor to protect Wales from further convergence, the implementation of transition mechanisms towards a needs-based formula for my country and a place at the table for the Welsh Government in discussions on fiscal autonomy for Scotland. Will he ask for a debate in Government time on those proposals?

George Young: There will be questions on Wales on 28 July, I think. In the mean time, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. I am aware of the importance of issues concerning the Barnett formula.

Gordon Banks: Protecting the most vulnerable in our society should be a basic principle of government, so may I urge the Leader of the House to create the opportunity to debate, in Government time, the statement of 15 June 2010 by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Health Canada and the European Commission's directorate-general for health and consumers regarding the safety of looped blind cords so that we can put an end to the strangulation of children by looped blind cords in this country?

George Young: I agree that protecting the most vulnerable is an important objective for any Government. That is why, in the Budget, we took 800,000 people out of tax and increased the rate of capital gains tax and that is why our proposals are designed specifically to protect the most vulnerable from the measures that are necessary in the public interest.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: May I earnestly press the Leader of the House on the need for an urgent debate on the impact of the BSF cuts that were announced on Monday? I am not sure that he is fully aware of the concern that is being expressed in constituencies such as mine about the impact of these dreadful cuts not only on our young people but on local construction jobs in an area that greatly needs employment.

George Young: I am well aware of the concern, because I sat through the exchange, as I am sure she did, at 7.15 pm yesterday when colleagues made their views known and I have seen the  Hansard report of the statement on Monday afternoon. I would be misleading her if I said that I could find time for a debate on this issue. I have outlined the business from now almost until the House rises and I am not sure that I can find time for a debate on it.

Kevin Brennan: A couple of weeks ago, when I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the use of extended travel money by Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, he told me that they should rely on Short money. The Library has kindly provided some figures from the last Parliament that show the average amount per Member for extended travel was £296 and the average per Conservative shadow Cabinet Member was £1,748.58. The right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), now the Minister for Universities and Science, spent £3,763 and the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, spent £13,573. I am not criticising them; they were simply doing their job as Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. The Leader of the House is a fair man, so will he look into this? Is it right to deny us in opposition the opportunities his party had in opposition to do their job?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, in that the regime for extended travel in the last Parliament appears to have been more generous than the new extended travel regime introduced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The issue has already been raised with IPSA by me and by some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. and right hon. Friends, and I shall pursue the matter to see whether we can get some equity of treatment.

Stephen McCabe: I am disappointed by the almost glib way the Leader of the House sought to dismiss our concerns about the Building Schools for the Future fiasco. Do the Government not owe it to the people of this country, including my constituents who send their children to King's Heath Boys, to give us a full debate in Government time so that we can understand what went on? Is it a question of competence on the part of the Secretary of State? Is it a communication problem with his officials? Is it a sign of things to come, as the Government attempt to make cuts left, right and centre? Far from providing stability, we are in for months and years of misery and chaos, and if the Leader of the House is not prepared to let us understand what went on, I suspect he is trying to cover something up.

George Young: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that each year 20 days are allotted for Opposition debates? If he and his hon. Friends believe that they have a case against the Administration on incompetence, it is open to them to choose as a subject for an Opposition day exactly the issue he has raised-the handling of Building Schools for the Future.

Toby Perkins: In Prime Minister's questions yesterday, the Prime Minister elected to answer a question by, in his words, trying to boost sales of a book that I understand was published by an organisation part-owned by Lord Ashcroft. Can the Leader of the House assure us that rather than questions to the Prime Minister resulting in all Members of Parliament receiving an e-mail from the publishing firm-almost as though it knew what would happen-they are there to provide enlightenment to members of the public and not for the Prime Minister to make a sales pitch on behalf of Conservative party benefactors?

George Young: I think that there is some room in our proceedings, at some times, for just an element of humour. I hope that Ministers will not be penalised or discouraged if occasionally, every now and then, they use a sense of humour.

Barry Gardiner: The work of citizens advice bureaux is widely regarded on both sides of the Chamber. Will the Leader of the House make a debate available so that we can discuss the cuts to citizens advice bureaux-approximately £2.5 million this year-which they are finding it extremely difficult to cope with? As all Members know, such cuts increase pressure on their constituency surgeries and on legal advice centres as well.

George Young: I pay tribute to the work of citizens advice bureaux, particularly the ones in Andover and Tadley in North West Hampshire. I think it is an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall, but if the hon. Gentleman is advocating that more funds should go to a particular area of expenditure he owes it to the House to identify some areas of savings to compensate for that.

Derek Twigg: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the terms of reference for the review of education capital expenditure announced by the Secretary of State for Education earlier this week? Has the Leader of the House had the chance to see that buried deep in the terms of reference, under the heading "Reducing the burden on schools" are the following words:
	"To review and reform the requirement on schools, including the building/School Premises Regulations, design requirements and"
	-most important-"playing field regulations". Does that mean not only that we shall see new schools stolen from under the noses of our children but also that their playing fields will be sold off?

George Young: If the hon. Gentleman comes along on Monday he can put that question to the Secretary of State for Education and get an answer.

Christopher Leslie: Might we have time to debate the serious and worrying developments-human rights abuses and stories of unlawful killings-in the Srinagar area of Indian-administered Kashmir? There are many ongoing concerns, particularly about the Kashmir question and it is about time that India and Pakistan found a way to move towards a peaceful and democratic future for Kashmir.

George Young: I agree. It is a serious issue that ought to be debated and it seems to me an appropriate subject for Westminster Hall.

Luciana Berger: May I echo the request made by many of my hon. Friends and ask the Leader of the House to find time for an urgent debate on BSF? On a number of occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the opportunities offered by Opposition day debates, but as far as I am aware an Opposition day debate has not been allocated before the recess. One hundred and ten of the projects slashed were schools in the north-west, and 57 of them were in Merseyside and Cheshire alone. We need to debate the disproportionate impact of those cuts on the life chances of children from across the north-west.

George Young: I am sorry to have to give the same answer as I gave a few moments ago. I cannot find time for an urgent debate on that subject. I have outlined the debates that are likely to take place between now and the end of the month. Again, I have to say that the reason for the announcement was the over-commitment of the outgoing Government of funds and the absence of the cover necessary in Departments to meet those commitments.

Chris Bryant: rose-

Mr Speaker: I have been saving him up-Mr Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for saving me up.
	In answer to the splendid and hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who frankly should have been on the Government Front Bench, the Leader of the House got a bit ahead of himself. He said that we were about to have weeks of debating a constitutional reform Bill, but actually we have not yet been told whether there will be one Bill or two. We have not even been told when the First Reading will be, let alone Second Reading or any other stages. The Bill has not been published yet. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to tell the House when the Bill is to be published, in advance of its being published, and that it will not be on the last day before the recess?

George Young: I am not getting ahead of myself at all. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday, he would have heard clearly outlined the legislation that would be introduced on constitutional issues. There will be a Bill on the alternative vote system and boundaries, and there will be a Bill on fixed-term Parliaments. That is likely to take some time for us to discuss and there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor to raise the issues that concern them on the Floor of the House.

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady can raise a point of order, but only after the statement. Perhaps she could hold her horses for a little while.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44)

Theresa May: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
	On Wednesday last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton is final. This judgment found that the stop and search powers granted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 amount to the violation of the right to a private life. The Court found that the powers are drawn too broadly-at the time of their initial authorisation and when they are used. It also found that the powers contain insufficient safeguards to protect civil liberties.
	The Government cannot appeal this judgment, although we would not have done so had we been able. We have always been clear in our concerns about these powers, and they will be included as part of our review of counter-terrorism legislation.
	I can, therefore, tell the House that I will not allow the continued use of section 44 in contravention of the European Court's ruling and, more importantly, in contravention of our civil liberties. But neither will I leave the police without the powers they need to protect us.
	I have sought urgent legal advice and consulted police forces. In order to comply with the judgment-but to avoid pre-empting the review of counter-terrorism legislation-I have decided to introduce interim guidelines for the police. The test for authorisation for the use of section 44 powers is, therefore, being changed from requiring a search to be "expedient" for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of its being "necessary" for that purpose; and, most importantly, I am introducing a new suspicion threshold. Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers; instead, they will have to rely on section 43 powers, which require officers to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have "reasonable suspicion".
	These interim measures will bring section 44 stop-and-search powers fully into line with the European Court's judgment. They will provide operational clarity for the police. And they will last until we have completed our review of counter-terrorism laws and taken any relevant action arising from that review.
	The first duty of Government is to protect the public. But that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties. I believe that the interim proposals I have set out today give the police the support they need and protect those ancient rights. I commend the statement to the House.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for early sight of the statement. The fifth anniversary of 7/7 yesterday reminded us all of the threat to this country and the tremendous work of the security services and the police in protecting our citizens from harm. The Prime Minister pointed out on Tuesday-very eloquently, I thought-how real those threats continue to be.
	The Home Secretary will be aware that the European Court's judgment was based on the way that section 44 powers were used by the Metropolitan police some years ago, and that the previous Government, together with the police authorities, reviewed and improved their procedures in the intervening period. Will she confirm that the number of stop and searches under section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years? She will also be aware that all the UK courts, including the High Court and the House of Lords, rejected the argument that the Gillan and Quinton case represented a breach of article 8. In particular, the Law Lords were doubtful whether an ordinary, superficial search of the person could be said to show a lack of respect for private life. Even if article 8 did apply, they said the procedure was used in accordance with the law and it was impossible to regard a proper exercise of the power as other than proportionate when seeking to counter the great danger of terrorism.
	The Home Secretary will also be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined this issue thoroughly in 2005, when the current Prime Minister was a member of that Committee, and rejected the allegation that the Asian community was being unreasonably targeted by the Metropolitan police in its use of section 44 powers. She will also know that while the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, had concerns that section 44 powers were being used too often-this was before the changes in 2007-08-he stated clearly that
	"the power remains necessary and proportional to the continuing and serious risk of terrorism".
	Given all those facts, I am amazed that the Home Secretary would not have pursued an appeal, given that every court in this country rejected the argument in respect of Gillan and Quinton.
	Nevertheless, we are where we are in terms of the legal avenues in Europe, and it does seem to me sensible to change the test for authorisation from "expedience" to "necessity" and to use a test of "reasonable suspicion", but I am deeply concerned about the Home Secretary's intention to restrict section 44 powers to searches of vehicles. That quite clearly restricts the powers of the police.
	Was the Police Service of Northern Ireland consulted, given the current dissident threat in Northern Ireland? We sometimes say that there have been no terrorist murders in Britain this year; but there have been in the United Kingdom: there have been terrorist murders in Northern Ireland. What is the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and in particular the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on this restriction? Were they consulted? Was Lord Carlile consulted, and if so, what is his view?
	Does the Home Secretary accept that section 43 does not require ministerial authority, and why does she believe it is necessary to go this far, by restricting section 44 to searches of vehicles only, in responding to the European Court's judgment? Is she saying that nothing less will suffice? Did she explore other legislative options, and will she publish for consultation other options for amending section 44, so that the House can see the alternatives and debate them fully?
	We have the prospect in this country of the police being asked to continue to protect us with fewer officers, diminished resources and restricted powers. The Home Secretary needs to understand that it is not the coalition agreement that will keep the public safe-it is the security services and the police. The statement today will undoubtedly make their job more difficult.

Theresa May: First, may I echo the comments that the shadow Home Secretary has made about the important work that is done by the police and by our security services? That, of course, was made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister in the statement in relation to detainees that he made in the House earlier in the week, and I echo those comments. Our police forces do sterling work for us and they go out there every day, dealing with difficult circumstances and are-we should never forget this-prepared to put their lives on the line for our safety.
	Yes, I can confirm that the number of stop and searches made under the section 44 and section 43 powers has reduced significantly over time. That should not, though, leave us under any illusion that there are not still concerns, not just in relation to the European Court judgment but concerns more generally in the UK about the use of those powers; that is why, as a coalition Government, we were committed to reviewing those powers in any case in our review of counter-terrorism legislation. I believe it is absolutely right to do so.
	The shadow Home Secretary asked about other options that were being looked at. Those will be considered within the counter-terrorism review. The purpose of making this statement today was to ensure that police forces have the operational guidance that they obviously need, so that they know what they should be doing now given the European Court judgment. I would remind the shadow Home Secretary that I have responded to that judgment, which is clear about the two points-that these powers should only be used when they are necessary rather than expedient, and that there should be a degree of suspicion in order for the powers to be used. It is exactly that which I am now implementing in the statement and in the changes that are being made.
	The shadow Home Secretary asks about restricting the use of section 44 to vehicles rather than individuals. Section 43 allows for the stop and search of individuals already with the reasonable suspicion attached to it. He mentioned Northern Ireland. I certainly do not in any way underestimate the importance of these powers in relation to Northern Ireland. I have been in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consultations have taken place in Northern Ireland on the use of these powers, but I would remind the shadow Home Secretary that there are various other powers that can be used, as set out in the Northern Ireland-specific legislation. For example, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, PSNI can stop and question individuals to ascertain identity and movements, and can stop and search people in vehicles for munitions and transmitters, and there are a variety of other powers that can be used by PSNI.
	Finally, the shadow Home Secretary said to me that I, as Home Secretary, need to understand. I think what the shadow Home Secretary needs to understand is the degree of concern that there has been about the use of these section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000-the degree of concern that did arise, not just initially from the way in which they were being used by the police, but a continuing concern about the impact on our civil liberties. I make no apology for the fact- [Interruption.] I believe the shadow Home Secretary was looking at a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and muttering about "their obsession". I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that a desire to protect our civil liberties is not an obsession; it is something that we throughout this House should want to do, regardless of political party. I believe it is the duty of Government to balance the need to give the police the powers they need to protect us, with the need to defend our civil liberties, and I believe that is what the statement does.

David Davis: May I commend the Home Secretary for coming to the House to say what she has said today and particularly for her decision to adopt a necessary, rather than expedient, use of these powers? This is a reflection of the excessive use of counter-terrorism powers by a number of forces throughout the country. In her review of these powers, will she look at their different use in various parts of the country? We know from the London and Glasgow bombings that terrorism is not confined to England, yet the number of uses of the power in England and Wales was well over 100,000 in the past calendar year; in Scotland, it was under 100.

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments on the statement and for his suggestion, which I am certainly happy to consider. He is absolutely right: the use of the powers among forces has been quite different-not just among England and Wales and Scotland, but between police forces in England and Wales.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is absolutely right to have taken the position that she has taken. There is no question of a further appeal, given the circumstances, and she is right to introduce guidelines. Will she share with the House any information about further claims for compensation, which could run to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds? We obviously look forward to probing her on these issues when she comes before the Home Affairs Committee. Can she assure us that she will return to the House regularly to continue to pursue the previous Government's counter-terrorism agenda, where we showed zero tolerance; that the claims made by Mr Yates that, somehow, the resources will not be there are ill-founded; and that she will provide all the resources necessary to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda?

Theresa May: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda, and we will, indeed, come to the House at various stages in relation to our review of counter-terrorism legislation and any related changes that we wish to make. He asked a specific question about compensation claims. We have, of course, responded quickly to the European Court's judgment, but the Court was clear and agreed with the Government that no compensation should be awarded given the short duration of stop-and-search powers. The finding alone was considered by the European Court as satisfaction, although it ordered the Government to pay legal costs.

Nicola Blackwood: Can the Secretary of State assure me that the counter-terrorism review to which she referred will draw a line under the abuse of state powers that we have seen over the past decade and that civil liberties will be sacrificed no longer for the sake of new laws that do not make us any safer?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the concern that many of us have had about the powers that were introduced by the previous Labour Government: in many cases, those powers did not introduce an increased element of safety. In fact, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the review of counter-terrorism undertaken by Lord Carlile, who said in his 2009 annual report:
	"There is little or no evidence that the use of section 44 has the potential to prevent an act of terrorism as compared with other statutory powers of stop and search."

Ian Paisley Jnr: I must say that I cannot join in the collective hurrah about the removal of powers that the House, not the European Court, should be in charge of. These powers were used successfully on 10,000 occasions last year in Northern Ireland to prevent and disrupt dissident terrorists. The year before that, only 3,000 stop-and-search measures were taken under reasonable suspicion, which is much more difficult to prove and identifies a suspect who may be traced by the police when they do not want him to be identified while they are pursuing him. What measures will now be put in place to ensure that the citizens of Northern Ireland are protected fully, completely and properly from the dissident republican threat?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. Obviously, I recognise the concern that he has raised in relation to the exercise of these powers in Northern Ireland and of the revised powers that I have announced today. The PSNI has a number of other powers available to it, and I referred to a couple of them in the response that I gave earlier to the shadow Home Secretary. The PSNI will still be able to use existing legislation to conduct targeted and intelligence-led stop-and-searches, to protect its officers and the communities that it serves, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail about the powers that will continue to be available to the PSNI.

Robert Walter: May I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and express some surprise at the shadow Home Secretary's attempt to defend the practice that has been ruled illegal? I remind the House that, in 1949, the United Kingdom was the architect of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights. Members who represent us at the Council of Europe have been embarrassed over the past few years by some of the previous Government's actions on human rights. Therefore, in any review of anti-terrorism legislation, will we be cognisant of our obligations under the European convention?

Theresa May: I am happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his excellent service on the Council of Europe, which he has undertaken over a number of years. Just as the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), we are cognisant in our work to review counter-terrorism legislation of the need to redress the balance between ensuring that our police have the powers necessary to protect the public and protecting our ancient civil liberties.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the right hon. Lady's statement today. She will know that I raised these matters in a series of parliamentary questions after the original judgment was issued. What those parliamentary questions elicited was widespread variation in how the powers had been applied. What steps will she take now to hold those chief constables to account for the way in which they abused the powers that were available to them, thus bringing the whole use of the powers into contempt by members of the public?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, this has indeed been a matter of concern to him for some time. He is right to say that the use of the powers has been variable among forces and over time. It is, of course, within the Secretary of State's remit to ensure that they are used partly through the authorisations, which must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the appropriate level of police putting those authorisations in place. Of course, we will revert to this issue in the counter-terrorism legislation review, and we will consider that matter at that time.

Tom Brake: If the coalition is obsessed with defending civil liberties, I am proud of that fact. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the balance between civil liberties and safeguarding our security is adequately redressed with these changes to section 44; or does she believe that further changes may be required to section 44 after the counter-terrorism legislation review?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The whole point of making the statement today is to ensure that an interim position is available to the police, so that they have operational guidance and clarity about the powers that they can exercise, but precisely because I feel that we need to take a wider look at section 44 and to look at it in the context of other counter-terrorism legislation, we will continue to consider it within the review. I cannot say at this stage whether any further changes will be introduced, but that would be done in the wider context of the review of all counter-terrorism legislation.

Mark Durkan: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement today. The European Court judgment was clear; the previous Government's attempt to appeal against it has failed; and she has acted properly in the decision that she has announced today. Does the earlier draft of the Home Secretary's statement that has gone into circulation and that referred to Northern Ireland, particularly to the approach to the parades season, in any way corroborate the suspicion that these powers have been used as a matter of convenience by the police on matters that are not directly a situation where terrorism is suspected?  [ Interruption. ] A draft has gone into circulation somehow that made reference to Northern Ireland and the approach to the marching season. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is aware of that, but certainly I and others received that draft. That feeds the suspicion that the power has been used more generally. Does she agree that section 44 was a misjudgment in legislation which has led in some cases to a misapplication of law enforcement?

Theresa May: I am concerned about the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, although I thank him for his comments on the statement. I assure him that the statement that I have made is the one that was drafted and that I saw this morning in the Home Office before I came to the Chamber. I am concerned if he has seen an alternative version, and I will look into that matter. I am very conscious of the possible impact in Northern Ireland. That is precisely why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have been discussing this issue over a number of days, and he has been consulting in Northern Ireland on the statement's impact. I believe that the PSNI had been exercising its powers under the legislation in relation to necessity and reasonable suspicion, and it can continue to do so as a result of the statement that I have made today. As I indicated in an earlier response, other powers will still be available to the PSNI.

Graham Evans: Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the police can continue to use existing stop-and-search powers to combat drug dealers and those carrying knives and guns, and that counter-terrorism legislation ought never to be used for those purposes?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which enables me to be clear that the other stop-and-search powers are not affected by the statement. The statement relates to the Terrorism Act 2000, particularly section 44, although other sections are part of the change. I am changing the guidance on section 44, but other stop-and-search powers are still available to police.

Stephen McCabe: I accept that the Home Secretary has acted speedily in view of the Court's decision. Will the interim guidelines be published? Although I accept her point about civil liberties, is she confident that police officers will not now go in fear of disciplinary action as they attempt to exercise reasonable suspicion in their efforts to protect the rest of us?

Theresa May: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am confident that that will not be the case. The purpose of the statement today, as he recognises, is to give clarity at as early a stage as possible to police officers on how they are to operate the guidelines. The guidelines will be published, including in the  Hansard report of my statement.

Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary should realise that the new guidelines will be very welcome in Kent, where we have had to deal with a number of criticisms of the use of stop-and-search, particular with respect to the climate camp at Kingsnorth. Does she agree that although senior police officers should be consulted on such matters, it is essential that national policy guidance should be determined by her, as the Minister accountable to Parliament, and not the Association of Chief Police Officers?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His observation of the difficulty arising from the exercise and use of those powers in Kent shows precisely why there has been fairly widespread concern about them. He is entirely right, which is why I have come to Parliament today to make this statement. The decision on the guidance that is issued to police forces is one that I have taken as Home Secretary.

Robert Halfon: Last December, I was subject to section 44- [ Interruption. ] Fortunately, I was sent away and everything was fine, but nevertheless I felt that my liberties as a citizen had been infringed on, and a sense of grievance, albeit a small one, against the authorities.  [Interruption.] My great problem with what the previous Government did is this: if we believe in liberal democracy, we must also hold out strongly for its values. We weaken those values at great cost. Does the Secretary of State agree?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The shadow Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), mutters from a sedentary position, "It was random," but that is the whole point of the European Court judgment. There needs to be a degree of suspicion if the police are to stop and search somebody. On the rest of my hon. Friend's question, it is important for us to defend our civil liberties. I believe that that is the task of everybody in the House, and I am only sorry that the previous Government chose to infringe those civil liberties in some of their legislative decisions.

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be safe, we must keep the whole country on side and ensure that no group feels persecuted or victimised, and that today's announcement is a welcome step in the right direction?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely valid point. It is in a sense an extension of the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)-notably, one difficulty was that parts of the community felt that the way in which the stop-and-search powers were used was disproportionate. The concerns were such that they began to bring into disrepute the police's ability to keep us safe at the same time as we, as a Parliament, maintained our civil liberties.

David Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she confirm that there will be no increase in police paperwork as a result of the changes?

Theresa May: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that he keeps us up to the mark on our commitments on police bureaucracy. It is certainly not my intention that there should be any increase in police paperwork as a result of the changes.

Points of Order

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to what appears to be a major defect in our procedures in the House? Our sister Parliaments in Canada and the Netherlands-countries that have made similar sacrifices to our country in blood and treasure in Afghanistan-have debated and voted on the deployment of troops to that country. Of course, our deployment took place in 2001, before the precedent was set, prior to the Iraq war, for a vote in the House before troops are deployed. At this turning point in our involvement in Afghanistan-the welcome announcement of our withdrawal of our soldiers from north Helmand and the announcement of a possible exit date-would it not be appropriate that we debate and actually vote to decide whether we want to continue to send our soldiers to Afghanistan?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but he knows very well that he is seeking to inveigle me into making what is essentially a political pronouncement, and I must not do that. He has made his point very clearly. How such matters are addressed is a matter for the House. In an earlier incarnation, I had views and expressed them on this matter; in my present role, I do not have views, and therefore will not express them. However, he has expressed his views very clearly, and I have a feeling that he might want to apprise his constituents of the fact of what he said.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Numerous media reports today and yesterday have suggested that the Government intend to change the date for digital radio switchover, and that they will announce that in a speech being made this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). Have Ministers given any indication that they intend to pay Members of this House the courtesy of informing them of this significant change in policy, which will affect millions of people and businesses in Britain, or is this the latest example of the new Government treating Parliament with complete contempt?

Mr Speaker: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have certainly received no indication from a member of the Government that he or she intends to make a statement on this matter. The point of order that he raises will have been heard very clearly on the Treasury Bench. It is a matter into which I am very happy to inquire. The right hon. Gentleman, who is always keenly abreast of events, will know that I have made my views very clear about the requirement for policy statements by Ministers to be made first to this House and not-I repeat not, for the benefit of those listening on the Treasury Bench; if I could attract the attention of the Minister for Immigration, I should be grateful-outside this House.

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions, the Leader of the House frequently directed hon. Members to seek debates in Westminster Hall, so is it in order to ask you to investigate the apparent reluctance of a large group of Departments to answer Adjournment debates there? The same group of only nine Departments that answered debates this week are answering next week, and in the week beginning 26 July. The other larger group of 15 Departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Treasury, are answering for only one week in four-the week beginning 19 July. Can Members seeking a debate with Ministers from one of those 15 Departments be told just why those Ministers are becoming less and less accountable to the House?

Mr Speaker: I say to the hon. Lady, first, that there was-I believe that I am right in saying-at one time a system of alternation, whereby one set of Departments would answer debates in Westminster Hall one week and the other would answer in the subsequent week. Strictly speaking, it is a matter for the Government to decide how to respond to issues, but in so far as the hon. Lady is airing a concern that issues which Members wish to raise are not being responded to, I am happy to look into it. I shall revert to her when I have further and better particulars.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been advised by the Table Office, which has otherwise been incredibly helpful to me in every respect, that I am not permitted to use the word "democratic" in the title of an early-day motion. Given that we are in possibly the greatest Parliament in the world and one of the oldest democracies, do you agree that it is unusual that I should not be allowed to use that word? Would you review the rules so that that word may be allowed its rightful place in this House?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, although I have known him a long time, so I am sure that he will not be offended if I say that, on the whole, matters of this kind-that appertain to the Table Office and the staff of the House-should not really be raised in the form of a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to appeal to me, but it is the sort of matter best dealt with not on the Floor of the House.
	However, the hon. Gentleman has raised the point and, having had no previous knowledge of what he intended to say, I would respond thus. He pleads the case for being allowed to use the word "democratic" in the title of an early-day motion, but it all depends on the detail-therein lies the devil. I do not know what title he had in mind, but ordinarily the title of an early-day motion, in order to be acceptable to the Table Office, is supposed to be strictly factual. It is not supposed to be argumentative or disputatious. If an hon. Member is unhappy with the advice from the Table Office, he or she can write to me and I will consider the matter.
	I hope that that is a helpful answer-it is certainly a comprehensive one-but if the hon. Gentleman has a proposal for a general change to the House's procedures on these matters, his request should be directed to the Procedure Committee.

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) raised the issue that IPSA's byzantine procedures may have constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege. My concern is similar. It is that IPSA is markedly failing to pay in any reasonable time the duly accredited invoices presented to my office by those small and medium enterprises that provide services to me and to those small community organisations and charities that furnish me with a room. It may well be that their only recourse is to attempt to bring bailiffs into this House to remove objects from our offices to meet their outstanding payments. Would that constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege? Those small and medium enterprises must have some avenue by which they may receive what is duly theirs.

Mr Speaker: I have just been advised that page 167 of "Erskine May" applies in this context, and I feel sure that the full details of that are well familiar to the hon. Lady. She conjures up a lurid spectacle that will concern many hon. Members, and she does so on the basis of experience, and that is respected. She will be aware that all sorts of discussions take place between Members of Parliament and representatives of IPSA, and that is perfectly proper. However, I am sorry to have to tell her that as things stand it is clear that matters of privilege cannot be addressed by being raised on the Floor of the House in this way. If she wishes to write to me with an argument about a potential breach of privilege, it is open to her to do so. I shall look in my mailbag.

Glenda Jackson: You will find an envelope.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is my maiden point of order to you, so I hope that you will be gentle if I get the wrong approach. Have you any further information about the encampment in Parliament square? On Saturday some guests attending a function in the House went to see the statue of Winston Churchill. They were from abroad and thought that the encampment was a summer fete. They were approached by people from the camp who asked them for money and when it was not forthcoming they were subjected to racist abuse. They could not call the police because the camp is on an island and they did not know that the police could cross the very busy road. Do we know when the camp is to be removed? I have read in the newspapers that the Mayor of London had taken out an injunction but that it had been appealed. It would be helpful if Members knew what progress had been made.

Mr Speaker: I am very sorry to learn of the experiences that the right hon. Gentleman describes. The short answer to his question is that the issue has been the subject of legal argument. Until that argument is fully resolved, I should be very cautious in what I say. I am keen, as I know others-including the Mayor of London-are keen, that this issue should be resolved satisfactorily in the interests of the public, including visitors to our country, as quickly as possible.

Gordon Banks: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This must be a day for maiden points of order. We have just heard from the Home Secretary about the importance of the Government's responsibility to protect the public. Can I ask you, therefore, whether it is acceptable for the Leader of the House deliberately to ignore the question that I put to him during business questions on the safety of children and looped blind cords? The response by the Leader of the House will be seen by families who have lost children in that manner as grossly unacceptable. Is such a practice appropriate?

Mr Speaker: There is no procedural impropriety concerned. I can almost smell the hon. Gentleman's anger on behalf of his constituents, but he is seeking to continue the debate. Indeed, many Members might conclude that he has already successfully done so.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are of course the servant of the House of Commons and it could be argued that you should not make any statements without the authority of the House. However, in a rare exception, I ask whether you feel that you could raise your voice about the act of outright barbarism proposed by the Iranian Government. A 43-year-old woman is to be stoned to death. Her son has pleaded for clemency. Her offence is alleged adultery. I know that it is rare to ask the Speaker of the House of Commons to raise his voice, but a number of leading figures in the international community have done so already. We have been discussing civil liberties in our country, but let us imagine a person being stoned to death for an offence that she denies in any case. It is so primitive, so evil. In the circumstances, I wonder whether you could make a rare exception and, as the Speaker, raise your voice in protest.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has served in this House, at this mid-point in his career, for 35 years, if memory serves me correctly, and he knows the real limitations on what the Speaker can say. My concern is that, although the issue that he has raised is a matter of real concern and humanity, it is almost certainly not a point of order. I feel strongly about the protection of civil liberties and human rights, and I take the gravest exception to their abuse.
	The hon. Gentleman describes a truly horrific matter. I do not wish to treat anything that he says with levity-and I mean that-but he mentioned how several leading members of the international community had already condemned this prospect. I therefore seek to extricate myself from any difficulty by saying that whatever else the hon. Gentleman thinks of me, I am sure that he would not promote me to the level of a leading member of the international community. He has put his concerns on the record, and I have tried to be as helpful as I can. I hope that we in this House are in favour of human rights, not of their grotesque abuse.

Defendant Anonymity

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of defendant anonymity.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject for a second time. On this occasion, I am a little less inhibited by time pressure, but I am conscious of the number of people seeking to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not delay the House too much. Since I last addressed the House, in the 7 June Adjournment debate, the Government have reviewed the arguments more fully and our thinking has advanced, and I look forward to the opportunity to explain where matters now stand. I also look forward to dispelling some common myths and misconceptions about our policy.
	I emphasise again that the question of anonymity for rape defendants is wholly consistent with our fundamental commitment to supporting victims of crime. Violence against women, girls and vulnerable people is totally unacceptable, whatever the context or circumstances. We know that victims of sexual violence often find it very difficult to report a rape to the police, and of course for those who have felt able to come forward, going through the criminal justice process can be an incredibly difficult and painful experience. Our focus is on the rights and welfare of the victim, and we are committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, we are looking at putting funding for rape crisis services on a more sustainable basis and at establishing new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision.
	The Government Equalities Office is currently carrying out a consultation on a strategic action plan, including Government action on working with a more sustainable violence-against-women voluntary sector, based on cash, commissioning and capacity building. It closes on 23 July. The action plan suggests a capacity-building project to be carried out in partnership with the relevant umbrella bodies, to support their ability to represent Members and work together to influence the Government. The Home Secretary will be chairing a meeting of Ministers across government later this month to discuss how we tackle violence against women more widely.
	We will not conflate myths and stereotypes about false allegations with our detailed work on the proposals for defendant anonymity. This debate is not about doubting victims' reports or repeating uninformed arguments about false allegations. Baroness Stern has stated in her independent and impressive review that this is an area on which we need further research, and the Government are looking into this. I want to make it clear that Baroness Stern's review of the evidence found that only a very few rape allegations are false:
	"It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports. However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few."

Caroline Flint: Will the Minister give way?

Crispin Blunt: I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I would like to get through the bulk of my remarks, and make clear the Government's position and the explanation for it. I will then be happy to take further interventions. At this stage, however, I am happy to give way to her.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has just put it on the record that, based on the available evidence, there is little evidence of a high rate of false allegations. In that context, will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who did not help the debate when he said, having been questioned about falsely accused rape defendants:
	"We know that a lot of people are falsely accused"?-[ Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 328.]

Crispin Blunt: I think that the right hon. Lady will appreciate what I am about to put on the record regarding the detail of evidence in this area. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that the Government will make a full response to Baroness Stern's recommendations in due course. I want to make it clear that the issue of false allegations is not one of the reasons for considering changes to our policy on rape defendants. It would be were there strong evidence that a significantly greater number of false allegations are associated with rape than with other offences, but the Government do not believe that to be the case.
	On that question, I remind the House again, as I did in the earlier Adjournment debate, that there are in fact two anonymity commitments in our coalition agreement. One relates to rape, the other-referring to no particular offence-to teachers. The House will wish to note that there is a specific reference in our coalition agreement to protecting teachers from false allegations, but no such linkage over rape complainants. It is therefore important that we distinguish between these two commitments. The criminal justice Departments will therefore need to carry out further work in conjunction with the Department for Education before we are in a position to provide a clear statement of how we intend to proceed on the teacher aspect.
	The remainder of my remarks, therefore, are addressed to the issue that has caused the most controversy and interest in the House-the issue around rape defendants. However, we will listen carefully to any contributions today on teacher anonymity, which will help to inform our discussions with other Departments.
	We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape.

Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify in more detail the proposals on teacher anonymity? Is he suggesting anonymity in respect of abuse, sexual abuse or rape, or have the Government not yet clarified in their own mind in precisely what circumstances teachers will be granted anonymity? Furthermore, will it extend to teaching assistants and other staff in schools, such as caretakers?

Crispin Blunt: I am surprised by that intervention because the Government made their position clear yesterday in a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). It bears repeating:
	"Finally, we will give teachers the strongest possible protection from false accusations. We will give anonymity to teachers facing accusations from pupils. This Government want to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers and even lives."-[ Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 12WS.]
	As I said, we will now hold discussions with the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Law Officers about how to proceed. Right now, however, I do not want to say anything further about that, as I have a significant amount to report to the House on the Government's position on rape defendants. I want to focus on that now.

Meg Munn: Will the Minister give way?

Crispin Blunt: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to set out the Government's analysis and position, and then I will be happy to take further interventions.
	We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape. It will be useful to the House if I share our best understanding of what happens to rape complaints made to the police. In 2008, 13,093 complaints of rape were made to the police. Based on a Metropolitan police survey in 2007, we would expect that one third of these were no-crimed and that 30% of this third-about 10% overall-were false allegations, which I believe to be reasonably consistent with false allegations around other offences. That is why the number of false allegations is not part of the reason for changing our position on this issue. Police identified 80% of suspects, and 73% of these were arrested, but only 44% of those arrests resulted in a charge by the Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps due to withdrawal of evidence by the victim, which could be caused by fear of reprisals, the court process or the lack of emotional strength to continue.
	What we know about case disposals in 2008 is as follows. Some 2,395 cases were proceeded with at a magistrates court, of which 1,822 were sent to the Crown court, with 24% of cases not proceeded with for various reasons, including the charges being dropped, although in some cases the defendant will have been convicted of other offences at the magistrates court. Of the 1,822 cases that proceeded to the Crown court, 24 were not tried for a variety of reasons. However, 1,798 men went on trial accused of rape in 2008, 51% of whom were convicted of rape, with 77% convicted either of rape or another offence. Of those who went on trial, 406 pleaded guilty and 1,392 pleaded not guilty. Of those pleading not guilty, 36% were convicted of rape, while 885 of those pleading not guilty were acquitted of rape or attempted rape. I estimate from the information made available to me that about half those will have been convicted of another offence, but it is not yet possible to be precise about that from the data examination that I have been able to undertake before today's debate.
	We need to empower police officers to improve rape investigations. We are all aware, as the recent Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into Kirk Reid has again demonstrated, of the terrible consequences that investigative failures can have. To demonstrate our commitment to improving the criminal justice response to rape, the Home Office will continue to fund the rape support programme this year, providing additional targeted support to forces to improve their approach and practice on rape investigation. We will also consider carefully how we can support agencies' joint work on sharing intelligence and good practice.
	The anonymity debate has been characterised by a number of myths and misconceptions, which have unfortunately served to obscure rather than clarify matters. For example, it is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward. One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect. Their cross-examination about painful personal matters would be exposed to the public gaze, which is bound to have a deterrent effect on the willingness of others to come forward. Parliament has long recognised that reality. However, it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have such an effect. There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants. That would be an effect of protecting the defendant's identity. The strength of that effect before and during any trial will be a matter of judgment.

Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that one of the reasons why people fear that introducing anonymity for defendants just in rape cases will deter reporting by victims is that he would be singling out that one crime for such treatment? Extending anonymity to defendants in all cases might not have the same impact, but by singling out one particular offence, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of sending a clear signal to victims that they will not be believed.

Crispin Blunt: I understand that that is one of the counter-arguments, but in the end it comes down to a matter of judgment and balance among a number of competing arguments. I am quite happy to concede that the argument that the hon. Lady has set out has some weight, but other arguments have to be weighed in the balance too. Let me therefore put those arguments before the House.
	To turn to our proposals, we have now had the opportunity to consider both the arguments and the background in further detail. The last time the subject was debated at any length in Parliament was during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Reference to those debates is highly instructive, and I would like, if I may, to dwell for a while on that subject. Anonymity for defendants was first raised in another place not by a Government or Opposition Member, but by a Cross Bencher, Lord Ackner, the late former Law Lord, who had tabled an amendment to the Bill. Lord Ackner's view was as follows:
	"For 12 years this anonymity"-
	that is, defendant anonymity-
	"was enjoyed. I have heard nothing to suggest that during those 12 years there were occasions when it worked to the disadvantage of justice. I have not limited my request to pre-trial because pre-trial is only part of the issue."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1095.]
	Their lordships narrowly accepted Lord Ackner's amendment, so that when the Bill passed to this House it contained provision for defendant anonymity. The then Government decided to resist that in its entirety. In Committee, the Opposition tabled alternative, probing amendments that would have granted anonymity either all the way to conviction or, as the case may be, up to the point of charge. Only the latter amendment was pressed to a Division. A similar Opposition amendment was tabled on Report and was also pressed to a Division. Interestingly, the Government of the day indicated that they accepted the desirability of pre-charge anonymity in principle, but preferred a non-legislative solution. Some scepticism was expressed by a number of speakers in both Houses about whether the non-legislative approach was realistic. However, there was also some support for the suggestion that a non-legislative solution would be ideal.
	When the Bill returned to the other place for consideration of this House's amendments, Lord Ackner moved an amendment similar to his earlier one, but on that occasion it was defeated. However, the coalition partners joined together to support a narrower amendment, tabled by Lord Thomas of Gresford, that would have provided statutory anonymity at the pre-charge stage. That amendment was duly passed. When the Bill returned once again to this House, the then Government maintained their previous position and the Lords amendment was again deleted from the Bill. The matter was once again pressed to a vote. That was followed by yet another round of debate in the other place. Ultimately, no further Opposition amendments were pressed, for fear that the whole Bill would fall as a result.
	In the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers indicated that discussions had been held with the Association of Chief Police Officers and with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As a result of the latter discussions, the press was looking at its code of conduct, to see how it could be strengthened to ensure that those suspected of offences-but not yet charged with them-were not named in the media. The burning question prompted by this saga is: what happened next? The answer is that the Press Complaints Commission issued a note in 2004 that specifically addressed the reporting of people accused of crime by reference to the relevant sections of the editors' code of conduct.
	It appears to be widely assumed that there is a self-regulation scheme in place that clearly prohibits the reporting of anybody accused of a crime but not yet charged with it. On close examination, however, the 2004 interpretative note does not provide complete reassurance. Nowhere does it contain an outright general prohibition on the reporting of pre-charge allegations. In fact, in the main, no mention is made of the distinction between pre and post-charge reporting at all. For that reason, anybody affronted-for example, by the reporting of an allegation that was not followed by charge-and who wanted to complain to the PCC about the matter might well find that they had no grounds to do so under the interpretative note or code.
	A further point, which soon became apparent from the exhaustive examination of the issue undertaken in this House and another place during the passage of the 2003 Act, is that both the then Government and the then Opposition parties settled on a position of agreement-in principle at least-to non-reporting up to the point of charge and normal reporting procedures thereafter.
	Much has been made in the past of the importance of open justice and the free reporting of criminal trials as key elements of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. We support that view. There is, however, another important reason of principle for distinguishing between the reporting of trials and the reporting of allegations before the point of charge. In the case of the latter, we are dealing with allegations that have not been subject to a full range of investigation.

Louise Bagshawe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Crispin Blunt: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set out where the Government are on this issue, and then I shall be happy to take further interventions.
	When there is an allegation before the point of charge, there may have been some degree of investigation into the allegation, but there will have been no formal assertion on the part of the state that anybody has a case to answer. Those points provide grounds to inhibit reporting that are not present at the trial stage. Therefore, having carefully reviewed the extensive background, having taken account of the fact that nobody should be appearing in a criminal trial unless the prosecuting authorities have assessed all the available evidence including any exculpatory unused material, and prosecutors having applied the other provisions of the code for Crown prosecutors and decided to bring criminal charges, the Government are minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge. This is consistent with the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee-on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister served-in 2003, and also with the reply that he gave to the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions last month.

Maria Eagle: Is the Minister saying that the Government are going to do this only in respect of the crime of rape, or are they planning to do it in respect of any criminal charge?

Crispin Blunt: This is about the crime of rape.

Louise Bagshawe: Will my hon. Friend expand on this a little? Does he understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House that, by singling out rape in this way, he is sending out a negative signal about women and about those who accuse men of rape?

Crispin Blunt: I do understand that, but we also have to take into account the arguments that sit on the other side of the equation. We are dealing with the environment in which these allegations are handled by the media. This is the position that the Government think strikes the right balance. It happens to be the position that was thought to strike the right balance by the previous Government and by the previous Opposition, when the matter was considered in 2003. It is also the position that was thought to strike the right balance by the Home Affairs Select Committee when it considered the matter in 2003. Therefore, unsurprisingly, this is the conclusion that the Government have come to.

Meg Munn: I am extremely puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has set out a very defensible position on why someone's name should not be in the public domain before they are charged, but why is that desirable only in relation to rape and not to any other offence? Surely the same should apply to anyone who felt that they had been wrongly accused of theft or burglary or any other offence.

Crispin Blunt: The strongest argument is around the balance of harms. The complainant in a rape trial has anonymity, and everyone who has considered this issue in the past has come to a balanced judgment that it is therefore appropriate to give the defendant a degree of anonymity. Because of the way in which rape is reported, these will have been the considerations that have guided previous Governments and Oppositions, and previous parliamentarians, in their consideration of this issue.

Keith Vaz: The Minister has correctly described the views of the Select Committee, of which the Prime Minister was a member, in 2003. I was not serving on the Committee at that stage. He has set out the Government's views very clearly today. Does this proposal exclude the possibility of the further research into false allegations that the Stern inquiry suggested? Is he dismissing the idea of further research altogether?

Crispin Blunt: No, it does not. I am delighted to say that the right hon. Gentleman has provided me with a cue to begin the next part of my speech, which deals with that issue.
	In taking our position forward, we will examine the question of section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which I understand has never been implemented. That section grants anonymity at the pre-charge stage to persons under 18 years old who are involved in criminal investigations, including suspects. It already provides a statutory equivalent for children and young persons to the measures that we have in mind for adults, and as such is linked to the present debate.
	Now, for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and other hon. Members, I should add a final note on the question of research. As hon. Members will be aware, the director of analytical services in the Ministry of Justice has been asked to produce an independent assessment of the current research and statistics on defendant anonymity in rape cases. We are aiming to publish this report before the summer recess, in the week commencing 26 July. It will cover all the available research and statistics on the subject and is intended to inform the debate.

Kate Green: Will the Minister clarify whether the published research-which will be immensely helpful-will include an analysis of media coverage, including, for example, statistics on coverage suggesting that the victim was in some way to blame? Or is media coverage to be excluded from the analysis?

Crispin Blunt: I will direct the attention of the director to the hon. Lady's remarks, to see whether it is possible to achieve that objective. If we were able to come to intelligent conclusions that would assist the debate, I am sure that that would be useful. We shall have to see whether this will be possible; we will examine the matter and try.

Simon Hughes: I am glad that the Government are listening and proceeding slowly, but there are other wide-ranging issues that I hope are also under consideration. Can the Minister tell us whether anonymity is being considered in the context of all sexual offences, as one category-  [ Interruption. ] I am asking the Minister. Is it also being considered in the context of all offences of violence, which is the other big category? Having single solutions for single types of offence, however important the offence is, would be the wrong way to go. Looking at this in the broader context is the right way to proceed.

Crispin Blunt: The Government have come to a view on where we want to strengthen the position, and it is around the offence of rape. There are arguments about whether this should apply more widely, and we have given careful consideration to them. Setting aside the issue of teachers-that is seen as discrete and should be carried forward separately-it is the Government's view that we should limit this to the particular offence of rape.
	Our current thinking is that the available evidence does not absolutely dispose of some of the questions that have arisen in relation to anonymity, even at the pre-charge stage. There is an important outstanding question of the extent to which anonymity might frustrate further police inquiries into an offence. We are looking at what further research might be required to fill in any gaps. This will enable us to take a view on any exceptions that it might be necessary to build into a general anonymity rule.
	Finally, I would like to explain how we intend to take matters forward over the summer. I want to stress that we have been treating this issue as a priority, and we will continue to do so. We recognise that the subject is of considerable interest to many people inside and outside the House, and in another place. In the circumstances, it would be undesirable to allow it to slip.

Yvette Cooper: It is important to put on record that the previous Government's position was not the position that the Minister has described-namely, that rape defendants should have additional separate protection in terms of anonymity. I also want to ask him to say a little more about this issue, as it concerns the House greatly. It would be helpful if he could give us a further explanation of why the Government think that rape defendants should be treated differently from every other kind of defendant.

Crispin Blunt: I think I have already answered that question-[Hon. Members: "No, you haven't!"] I am quite happy to accept that I might not have answered it to the satisfaction of the right hon. Lady and other Opposition Members.
	Our aim is to set out our detailed position at an early date. We envisage making a further announcement in the autumn, as soon as possible after the summer recess. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate those areas that still require further thought. I have already discussed the read-across to our commitment regarding teachers, and the scope of the provisions will clearly form a central element of that further work. Over the same period, we also intend to investigate the extent to which research might be required to fill in any gaps. The one area I have highlighted is whether anonymity might frustrate investigations. On the face of it, that is the most that is required, but we will reflect carefully. We will also use the intervening period between now and the autumn to engage the media, which has a key interest in the subject. I know the media would like to be consulted at the earliest available opportunity, and we will take steps to ensure that this happens. In these days of multiple media, we recognise the wisdom of discussing our proposals with broadcasters, as well as with the more traditional paper-based news industries, and we will do that.
	We will also have discussions with other relevant organisations. At this time, we have not decided exactly who is relevant for this purpose, but I am aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been mentioned a number a times in connection with this subject, and we will certainly take note of its views in developing our scheme further. We will speak to specialist voluntary sector organisations, the education sector and the children's work force with a view to gaining a better idea of the detailed impact on suspects and victims, and we will work up practical options for implementation.
	We see no case, however, for a formal consultation-[Hon. Members: "What?"]. The detailed arguments in this area are already well known, and we are not convinced that a formal consultation exercise would add value. It is capable of obscuring the real issues, and would certainly delay matters considerably. That cannot be in anybody's interests.
	Let me conclude by saying that it is a pleasure to be able to report real progress on this subject. As I have said, we look forward to being to announce further developments after the summer recess.

Maria Eagle: I begin by welcoming both the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice to their ministerial places to discuss this extremely important matter, in which there is much interest on all sides of the House and outside it. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), made an interesting speech, and I intend to take up some of the points he raised, but let me say that we do not disagree in this respect-rape is a heinous crime that wrecks lives and causes many victims unending suffering.
	Rape is a more prevalent crime than often imagined in the public consciousness. I have here some figures derived from official statistics. Every week, up to 2,000 women are raped, up to 10,000 are sexually assaulted, and between 75% and 95% of rapes are not reported to the police-these are figures taken from the joint inspection of the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. More than a third of all rapes recorded by the police are committed against children under the age of 16. As I think the Minister recognised at the beginning of his remarks, all that shows that this is a matter of huge import, not only to Government and Opposition Members but to all our constituents-and particularly, I might say, to women. Although men are subjected to rape-about 7% of victims are male-it is overwhelmingly women who the victims of this particular offence. I do not intend to ignore the fact that it is not only women who are involved in this type of offence, but, as I say, it is overwhelmingly women who are affected.
	Looking back at the history of this crime over many decades, it is clear that there has been agonised and sometimes passionate debate-in this House and in the wider society-about how best to deal with rape, how best to make sure that perpetrators are brought to justice and how best to assure women and others that they can be protected by our society's statutory authorities from being subjected to this crime.
	Despite the terrible figures, there is some cause for optimism. Following a great focus on improvements, the last decade or so has seen some forward movement, and a great deal of effort has been put in by partners, statutory and otherwise, across the criminal justice system who have done good work to bring together their input to focus on the key question and to tackle low levels of reporting and low levels of conviction. Labour Members accept, as we did when we were in government, that more needs to be done. We can say that reports to the police have doubled in the last 10 years, which is a good thing. We can say that there has been a 50% increase in the level of convictions-and the Minister's figures implied that, although he did not put it in that way. From charge to conviction, about 58% more have been convicted of rape or other sexual offences.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are cases where someone is accused of rape, as a result of which other victims come forward and the person accused of rape can be convicted as a result of that, although he would not have been convicted if the others had not come forward? In other words, the first accusation might not have been completely conclusive, so the anonymity of defendants can lead to more rapists and more rapes.

Maria Eagle: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is no doubt that rape can be a serial offence. Perpetrators of rape often do not stop at one offence; they continue their offending behaviour, so anything that deters victims or those who have been attacked from coming forward might have the unfortunate effect of making it more difficult to catch serial attackers at an early stage. It has been recognised for decades that gaining convictions is hard. The Minister read out the figures on attrition rates, to use that shorthand. Those figures show how hard it is to convict the guilty, so anything that makes it harder or deters people from coming forward or anything that makes it more likely that they will not believed when they do come forward can only be bad for the impact on conviction rates.

Glenda Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there has been an improvement in approaches to rape, but is not the underlying factor that informs-in my view, informs absolutely-what the Government are proposing the view that rape is an "avoidable" crime? It is assumed, for example, that if the woman had worn a longer skirt or drunk rather less or had not placed herself in situations that the external eye regards as dangerous, the rape could have been avoided. Would not the according of anonymity to an alleged perpetrator of rape simply reinforce that total fallacy, which it is so difficult to change?

Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many myths about rape. It is one of the few crimes for which victims are frequently blamed, if not by the statutory authorities, at least by society or certain elements of society or by those investigating the crime. One crucial thing we as a society must do if we want to convict more rapists is tackle all the causes of failure. We have to encourage those who have been raped to report in greater numbers, and we have to ensure that the support is there to enable them to go through the ordeal of trial and investigations, which can carry on for too long, often for many months. We must also provide aftercare and support for the victims. Anything that detracts from that will not help us as a society to deal with this heinous crime, and a consequence will be that more victims and more families will be affected. We should remember that it is often not just the victim herself who is affected by the crime and its aftermath but the children. We also need to bear in mind the fact that many children are themselves victims.

Simon Hughes: I agree that the idea is not to put people off, but to encourage them to come forward when a criminal justice process is being gone through. Does the hon. Lady agree that, as the police say, it is often not the name or physical identity or picture of the suspect that brings people forward but the knowledge of the method of operation? I speak as the MP of John Worboys, who operated as a cab driver. The knowledge that the offender was a cab driver was enough to encourage others to come forward. It could be knowledge that the person committing the offence usually climbs through a window at 1 o'clock in the morning. The point is that is often the operation, not identity, that is important.

Maria Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that revealing the modus operandi can bring women forward. Often, women do not want to report, and only when it is reported in the media or elsewhere that the person is committing the offence against other women do they have the courage to come forward. Anything that inhibits that process can damage efforts to catch serial rapists and to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way twice to me. Is she aware of cases in which, in response to individual children coming forward to say that they had been abused by a man running a teenage football team and by teachers, other members of the football team and the class concerned came forward with evidence of a multiplicity of abuse, leading to convictions? If defendants are given anonymity in rape cases, and if teachers are given anonymity in cases of sexual abuse, it will lead to more rapes, and it will lead to more rapists, including teachers, being free.

Maria Eagle: I fear that my hon. Friend is correct. In a meeting of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence yesterday, I listened to Chief Constable Dave Whatton, the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on rape, give examples from his force of the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend refers. For example, when allegations were published about a particular teacher, further victims came forward, enabling a conviction that might not otherwise have happened. Another similar example from his force concerned a vicar. We need to be careful to balance the potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach that the Government now say that they will take.

Meg Munn: The Minister made a great deal of the issue of balance, but vulnerable victims are often abused by someone in a position of power, who gets themselves into that position in order to carry out abuse. The weight of difficulty for victims is so enormous that equating their situation with that of a defendant is completely erroneous.

Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend: equating the position of the complainant with that of the defendant is erroneous.
	The Minister tried to clarify the Government's policy, but the coalition Government's programme set out in nine words, with seemingly admirable succinctness and clarity, that
	"we will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants".
	However, since its publication, all kinds of outrage, consternation and surprise have been caused, for two reasons. First, many people, including me, believe that the policy will not help to bring rapists to justice, but will do the opposite. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree about the need to bring more rapists to justice.

Michael Ellis: Is the hon. Lady not also conscious of the need to prevent false accusations against innocent people and the connected wrongs?

Maria Eagle: Indeed, I assume that must motivate the Government's policy, but the Minister did not set out in great detail in his speech why the coalition had such a focus.
	This country has a system of open justice, which is extremely valuable and an important part of our justice system. It should be changed only with great thought and for very good reasons. As anyone who has practised the law would be keen to set out, one can be accused of many crimes that can have an extremely deleterious effect on one's reputation, on one's standing in society, and on one's capacity to hold down a job, hold a family together and live a normal life, whether or not one is found guilty. Rape is certainly among such crimes, but so are murder, downloading child pornography, stealing when one is in a position of trust and many others. What surprises me about the proposal is that rape, rather than all sexual offences, is singled out for such treatment.

Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: No, I want to make some progress.
	The coalition agreement set out the matter clearly. The proposal will not help to bring rapists to justice, and the apparently clear and succinct policy was in neither of the coalition parties' manifestos. Therefore, it went from not even being important enough to mention when seeking votes from the public and a mandate from the electorate, to being such a major priority for the Government that it merited a specific mention in the coalition programme for government. Why was that? Nobody has told us. I am extremely grateful that we have this debate, which enables us to explore the matter in more detail. Where did the policy come from? Who suggested it? Who thought it was a good, or even workable, idea? Who, if anyone, was consulted about it? How did it go from being unmentioned at the election, by either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats, to being a top priority over the weekend of the coalition negotiations?
	The Minister tried to explain the proposal in a little more detail, but I fear that he has only added to the enormous confusion. Many Opposition Members have raised the matter with a variety of Ministers ever since the coalition programme for government was published. The acting leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), raised it at the first Prime Minister's Question Time of this Parliament. To say that the Government have responded with confusion and inconsistency is an understatement. It is not solely that Ministers from different parties say different things, but that the inconsistency and confusion, hardly helped by the Minister's statement today, are much more widespread. To an interested observed such as me, it looks like the Government do not have a clue what their policy is, because they have not taken any steps to work it out yet.

Caroline Flint: Much has been made of the report by the former Home Affairs Committee, and of the current Prime Minister being present when it took evidence. On 23 April 2003, however, when it took evidence on false allegations, he was not present. People must therefore be careful about laying claim to such knowledge and information.

Maria Eagle: I was not aware of that, but my right hon. Friend has put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue, and has raised it most consistently and effectively from the beginning of this Parliament.
	It is important to clarify precisely what the Government's policy is. According to the Minister's statement today, the policy is to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases up to charge. However, that has not been entirely evident from what Ministers have said. We have had answers from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Equalities and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate, which have all been different in substance and tone. When pressed, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of extending anonymity only to charge. The Deputy Prime Minister, when pressed, retreated into immediate and wholesale abandonment of the policy, suggesting that the Government had merely "proposed the idea", as if he were running an academic seminar rather than a legislative programme.
	He added:
	"If our idea does not withstand sincere scrutiny, we will of course be prepared to change it."-[ Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 50.]
	I hope that that, at least, still holds.
	The Under-Secretary of State, until today, has made it clear that he wants anonymity up to conviction. Last month he said that
	"it could go wider. There are reasons why it might also be applied to other offences."-[ Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 155.]
	The Minister for Equalities has also supported anonymity up to conviction, blogging that
	"a perpetrator would only be named if convicted."
	That seems to have changed today.
	Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, who appeared to be fed up with being asked the same question more than once, said in exasperation that it was all the Liberal Democrats' fault anyway because it was their policy. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats had better get used to being blamed for everything by his so-called partners in Government. The Justice Secretary went on to say that it was not going to happen quickly, although that is not what we have been told by his Under-Secretary of State in the House today.
	The Justice Secretary said that he favoured a free vote, or a "fairly free vote", as he put it. I must remember to ask the Opposition Chief Whip exactly what a fairly free vote is-or perhaps I should ask the Government Chief Whip.
	Compounding an already complicated and confusing picture, a number of Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State today, have said that they will "bring forward options" or are "attracted by the arguments". They have said, "We will debate it", or have called for evidence. Perhaps I am missing something about the new politics that we are told we now have, but I had always thought that Governments did those things before deciding on policy, not afterwards. This Government appear to be indulging in prejudice-based rather than evidence-based policy-making.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Lady certainly ought to give way at this point, having been part of a Government who indulged in policy-based evidence-making rather than evidence-based policy-making. She is entitled to her fun, but she should recognise that what I have said today is clearly consistent with the coalition's programme. The coalition has listened to the contributions that have been made, including the questions to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and the debate led by her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. We have reached a view on the appropriateness of the scope, and how the law should be applied. We are also still asking for evidence relating to the issue that was raised earlier. The hon. Lady will have to get used to the fact that ours is a Government who will actually listen, and take account of evidence that is promoted.

Maria Eagle: That was a very long intervention, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be as good as his word, and will listen. I hope that his travelling on the issue has not been completed. He has obviously changed his mind: until recently, he was saying that he wanted anonymity up to conviction, and that it "could go wider" in respect of other offences. Even after his speech, it is still not entirely clear to us precisely where the Government are. The Justice Secretary made it plain that this was not a priority, that it would be kicked into the long grass, and that when it did come up there would be a "fairly free vote". That is not what we have been told today.

Crispin Blunt: rose-

Maria Eagle: I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State in a moment.
	To reach a conclusion without any consultation-to decide the policy first and consult afterwards, when the effectiveness of the policy and the likelihood of its success are such an issue-is not a sensible way of proceeding.
	I shall leave aside the difficult task of pinpointing precisely what the policy is. The position has changed today, but it is still not absolutely clear. What is absolutely clear is that no one was consulted. There seem to be no ideas and no evidence about the impact of what I believe to be a retrograde and deeply troubling policy. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed in written answers that no written evidence was considered before the policy was presented. Ministers have met no victims' organisations, rape crisis organisations or members of the judiciary.
	Given that the Under-Secretary said today that there would be no consultation, it is clear that Ministers do not intend to meet and properly consider the views of those who know most about the issue and have most to say about it. That is a disgrace. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are Ministers analysing options and implications and asking for evidence, and they keep changing their minds about exactly what the policy is. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are they asking MOJ statisticians to pull together the existing evidence base. Should not the Under-Secretary have done all that before? Of course he should.
	I hope that I can help a little bit. I believe, and the Opposition believe, that it is not in the public interest to abandon the principle of open justice when it comes to such serious offences as rape. Singling out rape as an offence for which, uniquely, the defendant is granted a right to anonymity clearly suggests that false accusations are widespread, and that victims should be disbelieved by the criminal justice system, by investigators and by juries. That will deter people from reporting rape, which the Under-Secretary says he does not wish to do.

Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: Not at this point.
	In fact, people accused of sexual crimes should not be treated any differently from other defendants. If the Under-Secretary singles out rape from all other sexual offences, let alone offences of violence, he will send a clear signal that there is a reason for his action. That will impinge on victims' capacity to come forward and the likelihood that they will do so, which will in turn impinge on the conviction rate.
	The argument that there should be anonymity for defendants because there is anonymity for complainants is a false one. There is a public interest in bringing rapists to justice. A victim is a witness to a crime, not simply another party to a family law case or a civil case in which some kind of equivalence might be seen between parties. Rape is often a serial crime, and it is often only after many crimes that a perpetrator is brought to court. Previous victims often come forward at that point. That can be essential to the securing of a conviction, but the Under-Secretary's policy is likely to make it less efficacious.
	Many organisations have contacted Members about the proposed policy, including Rights of Women. It has endorsed a statement signed by 50 leading women's and human rights organisations, including many rape crisis centres and organisations that deal with victims of rape. It believes that giving suspects anonymity, whether until charge or until conviction, will hamper police investigations, enable serial offenders to evade detection-thus placing more women at risk of sexual violence-reinforce erroneous and harmful myths about the prevalence of false reports of rape, thereby deterring women from reporting it, and send a clear message to women that they are not to be believed. It calls on the Government to drop their proposals on anonymity, and instead to focus their energy where it is needed by concentrating on securing sustainable services for survivors of sexual violence and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape.
	The ACPO lead on rape, Chief Constable Dave Whatton-who knows a thing or two about the subject-has said
	"The proposal to extend anonymity in rape cases beyond victims would require primary legislation. ACPO has yet to see the detail of the proposals but would welcome being part of the formal consultation process."
	Well, apparently there is not going to be a formal consultation process, although the Under-Secretary did say that he would talk to ACPO, which is at least something.
	Chief Constable Whatton also said:
	"The welfare of rape victims needs to remain a priority. Our main concern would be in regard to the impact any changes on anonymity would have on victims, in particular on their confidence to come forward and report rape."
	It seems to me that the entire focus of the Under-Secretary and the Government on the issue of anonymity for defendants in rape cases rests on the level of false reports, although the Under-Secretary said that it did not. I think that one of the strongest arguments advanced by Members on the Government Benches who favour the proposal is the idea that there is a lot of false reporting. The last Home Office research on that was in 2005 and it suggested that the true figure was closer to 3% than the 8 to 10% that has been stated. However, false reporting is obviously a concern for those who are falsely accused, and it must be tackled. There is no disagreement between us on that. The question is whether the best way to tackle this is to allow anonymity for anybody who might be accused of any kind of offence, including all the people who are guilty. We argue that that would lead to less reporting and less ability to convict the guilty.

Bridget Phillipson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to draw a distinction between acquittal and false allegation? Rape is a difficult crime to prosecute and juries will sometimes not convict, and that is right, but that does not mean that the complainant lied.

Maria Eagle: That is right; my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There are very few examples of malicious reporting. When the public talk about false reporting, they are often really referring to malicious reporting, which we all agree is a perversion of the course of justice, and can be, and is, charged as such where it is discovered.
	We must make it clear that in the current context anonymity in effect means reporting restrictions. What we are talking about, therefore, is not an objective descent of anonymity on to a named individual, but inhibiting our free press from reporting matters of public interest. I had a word with the Newspaper Society about what it thinks about that.

Michael Ellis: rose-

Maria Eagle: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Lady is very generous. There are already episodes in our criminal justice system where names are withheld. Her former Government enacted terrorist offences legislation that allowed the names of defendants to be withheld, and for "A", "B" or "C", for instance, to be used instead. There are also thousands of youth trials every year in which the names of young people are withheld, and that has been the case for decades. This step would not be unique, therefore.

Maria Eagle: We do not, however, say in respect of any crime that there should be a generalised anonymity for defendants. Particularly for the crime under discussion, that is what would lead to the deleterious side effects I have been outlining. Having looked into this matter, I do not think the downsides of granting anonymity just in respect of rape could possibly justify the impact on the very few instances of malicious reporting that it seems that there are-we do not know the precise number.
	The Newspaper Society says that the law should remain unchanged; the victims of alleged sexual offences are protected against identification during their lifetimes, but even those restrictions can be waived or lifted by the court in specific circumstances. It thinks the Government's proposals are potentially far-reaching, and that that is fuelled by an imprecision in how they are set out. It thinks they could prevent the release, exchange, dissemination and publication of material, and that they could prevent investigation and reporting, including in respect of accuracy and legal checks, despite the real public interest in that being done. It also thinks they could fuel rumour and malicious gossip that is not just confined to the actual subject of the allegations, rather than prevent or curb that. It said, too, that the written statement on teacher anonymity was very imprecise, and that it is against it because of its imprecision and the potential impact on the capacity of a free press to do its job.

Meg Munn: I wanted to raise the following matter with the Minister, but he would not give way to me. I am unclear as to whether we are talking about anonymity for any accusation, such as a teacher being suspended in a disciplinary situation, or only for any criminal matters, such as rape.

Maria Eagle: I agree that some imprecision remains, and we would have many questions about the Government's intentions. One can understand, of course, that teachers who are maliciously accused of things have a terrible time. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but if the suggestion is that we revert to not believing children when they make allegations of abuse, that is a very dangerous and retrograde step. For too many years in the past, before we took safeguarding children quite as seriously as we now do in our society-and I hope we will continue to do so-children who made allegations were frequently disbelieved, with the result that abuse, including sometimes serious sexual abuse, continued for years. That destroyed lives, and we left vulnerable children completely unable to be protected because of then attitudes about whether to believe what they said. Any signal-and this Government have given a number of them-that we are reverting to that practice is extremely retrograde.
	I do not believe that getting rid of the rigour of the barring and vetting scheme, which arose out of the Bichard report into the Soham murders, sends a good signal about safeguarding children. I do not believe that abandoning ContactPoint sends a good signal about the intention to safeguard children. I do not believe we should add in anonymity in all circumstances for teachers against any allegation made, and perhaps for a wider range of school staff, because why stop at teachers? Why not school caretakers as well, and dinner ladies, teaching assistants, or any other number of staff in schools? I do not believe that sending that signal can possibly help us safeguard children in this country. It is a retrograde step. I do not believe we have seen any real evidence, thought or policy development that has led to those specific nine words and the other paragraph about teacher anonymity in the coalition agreement.
	I believe the Government are undertaking a calamitous and retrograde march backwards into the past. Given the range of views that there clearly is among Ministers, I believe there is still time for the Government to think about this, and to do better than they are proposing. I believe they should think again about consultation, as this kind of policy should be properly consulted upon. The experts out there in our society dealing with these situations every day, whether in schools or in our criminal justice system, deserve and need to be asked by this Government what they think the impact of these policy suggestions would be.
	Given that the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Justice, clearly signalled to the House that this policy is not on the list for early legislation, and given that he clearly signalled that he intended his party to have a fairly free vote when it was brought before the House, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), should say to the House in winding up, "We will consult. We will take this away. We will think again. We will have evidence-based policy making, not prejudice-based policy making." I urge him to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I remind Members that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches?

Rehman Chishti: I cannot hope to match the rhetoric of the new Members who have spoken before me with such great passion in their maiden speeches. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am not quite the last of the new intake of Members to get off the mark, although the list of those who have not done so is gradually diminishing. May I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the excellent and fair way in which you have presided over this Chamber?
	I wish to start my maiden speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, Paul Clark, who was elected to this House in 1997, when he overturned a 16,000-plus Conservative majority. Paul was a local boy, who grew up in Gillingham and cared passionately about Gillingham and Rainham. He served on the Back Benches of this House, as well as on the Front Benches as a Transport Minister. I wish him well in whatever the future holds for him.
	It is a great privilege and honour to represent Gillingham and Rainham, which has been my home since I was six years old; I attended Richmond infant school, Napier primary school, Fort Luton high school for boys and then the Chatham grammar school for girls sixth form-yes, I did say Chatham grammar school for girls. Being the only boy in a class of 20 girls has its challenges, but I must say that it was an excellent experience. In all, I was very fortunate to have some dedicated teachers throughout my education, who inspired me to be the first in my family to go to university. I was able to read law at the university of Wales in Aberystwyth, which led me to qualify as a barrister, and this firmly instilled in me the values of fighting for justice, both as a defence and prosecuting advocate.
	Gillingham and Rainham is a great constituency. Even in 55BC, when conquering Britain and passing through the area, Julius Caesar paid tribute to the men of Kent as the most civilised-I agree with him entirely. The towns, which have strong naval and military ties, are home to the Royal Engineers and are steeped in history. Both General Gordon and Lord Kitchener have links with the Royal School of Military Engineering. Currently, the Royal Engineers have two regiments serving in Afghanistan, and our constituency is very proud of the brave and courageous men and women who are there on active service. Many Victoria crosses, from both world wars, have been awarded to those with connections to Gillingham and Rainham, notably Major James McCudden from the first world war and Lieutenant Eugene Esmonde, of the Naval Air Service, from the second world war.
	Although 400 years of naval heritage presence has now gone, it is still a matter of pride that Lord Nelson joined his first ship in the very dockyard where his famous flagship Victory was built. All that makes me very proud to represent Gillingham and Rainham, but there is also an international link, because Will Adams, who travelled to Japan in 1598, was the first British sailor to travel to Japan-he was also from Gillingham.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention that Gillingham is home to a great football team, the Gills, although I have to say that watching the Gills is a bit like living life on the edge-one just never knows what is going to happen next. This is often reported in the excellent local newspapers, the  Medway Messenger,  Medway News, and  Your Medway.
	Gillingham and Rainham are part of the Medway unitary authority, an efficient, well-run Conservative council, which for the past 10 years has been very effectively led by Councillor Rodney Chambers and its chief executive, Neil Davies. I am very much looking forward to 2012 and the Queen's jubilee, when I hope that Medway will rightly be given city status.
	As a former barrister who both prosecuted and defended in criminal cases at all levels and who passionately believes in obtaining justice for the victims of crime, I am delighted to make my maiden speech in this debate on something that has rightly for many years now concerned this House, namely bringing to justice those who commit sexual offences, which are some of the most serious crimes on the statute book. In so doing, we must take care when addressing and balancing the competing interests of the victim against the rights of a defendant, who stands accused and is innocent until proven guilty.
	One of the foremost issues that needs to be urgently considered is the low conviction rate in such cases, upon which considerable work has been done by successive Governments. However in so doing, we may have unwittingly crossed the line while balancing that issue against not only the right of the defendant to a fair trial, but, more controversially, the thorny question as to whether there should be a right-and if so, to what extent it should apply-in relation to the protection of the identity of defendants accused of and charged with sexual offences of all categories of such serious crimes.
	In particular, recent experience has demonstrated that there are, unfortunately, occasions when defendants have, often for myriad complex reasons, been unjustly and falsely accused of sexual crimes. Extreme suffering is caused to victims as well as to those falsely accused in these cases, thus it is necessary to address these questions and face the challenges that they present head on. The low conviction rate in cases involving sexual offences is thought by many who practise in this field to be often due to the length of time between the commission of the offence and the date of trial. This not only leads to injustice in relation to memory recall, but causes considerable additional suffering to the victim while they await resolution of the same.
	Some European jurisdictions have sought to address these issues by designating certain courts as exclusive rape and domestic violence courts, solely concerned with the hearing of such cases. Those courts are specifically designed to hear video evidence, the staff are sympathetically trained and the courts are victim-friendly-for example, they ensure that the risk of accused and accuser unwittingly meeting is reduced to a minimum. As a result, cases are heard within a very short time of allegations being made, evidence is fresh and the statistics demonstrate that conviction rates have risen.
	The needs of true victims in allegations of sexual offences are always in the forefront of our minds when we legislate in this House, just as they are uppermost in the minds of those on whom we rely to dispense justice fairly on a daily basis in our courts: the judiciary of England and Wales. Our judiciary have been admired for generations and used as a model in many evolving democracies. We are justly proud of their work and it is time that we acknowledged our faith in them by restoring to the courts some of the important discretion that had traditionally always been entrusted to them by this House, but that has, unfortunately, been eroded by the previous Government in many areas, for example, in sentencing policy.
	The effect on those falsely accused of serious sexual offences by the publication of their names and the revelation of their identities in the media can have long-term and far-reaching disastrous unintended consequences. In April, a taxi driver who worked for a firm in my constituency was cleared of rape at Maidstone Crown court. The story had been reported on the front page of the  Medway Messenger , the largest circulating local newspaper in the area. It was only on the day of the trial-months later-with the defendant waiting in anguish, that the two supposed victims admitted that they had made up and falsely invented the serious allegation in order to avoid having to pay a taxi fare. They were later jailed for two years. The consequences for the wrongly accused defendant have been nothing short of disastrous as a result of the publication of his identity in the media. The concept of "mud sticks" is alive and kicking. He and others like him in the future deserve some measure of protection, as I believe we still have a system of justice in this country, of which we are justly proud, in which the accused is innocent until proved guilty on conviction by his peers. If safeguards are required to re-enforce that in sexual offences cases until conviction, in order to balance these competing interests, they should be put in place as a matter of urgency.
	I immediately acknowledge the arguments in favour of the publication of the identities of those accused of serious sexual offences, such as that that might encourage others to come forward. However, that approach does fly in the face of the presumption of innocence and presumes that anyone accused has done this before. We should examine the statistics carefully in trying to balance these crucial and diametrically opposed interests. Neither should be sacrificed in the interests of the other without the most careful consideration.
	Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has served us well in relation to the publication of the name, address or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person who is involved in criminal proceedings, including those on sexual offences. A court has complete discretion to hear anybody in support of or in opposition to an application pursuant to the section and consideration should be given to the extension of it automatically to include all those accused of serious sexual offences, allowing a judge to lift such a restriction in appropriate cases until conviction. A restriction until charge does not go far enough, as the test for charging is a "reasonable prospect of conviction" and thus far lower than the standard required for conviction by a jury.
	In other words, we should trust our judiciary to maintain the balance in any case, having carefully considered the competing arguments. We must also do everything we can to bring to justice those who commit such serious crimes.

Keith Vaz: It is an enormous pleasure for me to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), which I thought was excellent. I first met the hon. Gentleman on his first day on the House and I did what every old Member does to every young Member-no, not that! I asked him when he was going to give his maiden speech, and I kept asking him week after week. He said that he was going to save it for a really important debate and he was right to do so. He spoke with great eloquence and enormous passion about his constituency. He cleverly named all three local newspapers, the leader and deputy leader of his council and his local football team, and he becomes, of course, the most famous graduate of Chatham grammar school for girls. That kind of story is almost new Labour.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a huge contribution to this House. We on the Opposition Benches and, I am sure, Members on his side look forward to his eloquence in future debates. I wish him well in what I am sure will be a long parliamentary career. He was right to mention Paul Clark. Paul-or Mr Clark, or whatever we call former Members of the House-had a very small majority. We would have been delighted if Paul had won again, but the hon. Gentleman has turned the majority into five figures. We wish Paul Clark well in his career; he was a very popular Member and was admired and liked on both sides of the House.
	This debate, like all debates in the House, is very important. I am speaking only because the Home Affairs Committee has been mentioned on numerous occasions. The Prime Minister has mentioned the deliberations of the Select Committee in 2003, when he was a member, and Members on both sides of the House have referred to that, so I felt it appropriate to inform the House of what the Select Committee decided when it conducted an investigation into this important matter seven years ago.
	The Prime Minister was a member of the Committee at that stage, but I did not know until my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned it in her intervention that he was not present when the evidence was taken. However, as a former member she will know that it is not vital to be there when evidence is taken so long as one is part of deliberations on the proceedings. I say that in the presence of one new member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). We look forward to the Government's tabling the order to set up the Select Committee so that we can meet and start to discuss these matters-I know that the Minister is no longer a Whip, so he has no control over these matters. This is certainly one of the issues that we will want to consider.
	The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham came up with the crucial point that was perhaps missing from the Minister's speech. Why is it necessary to extend anonymity just for those who have been accused of rape up until the time of charge? That is what the Select Committee said and I will read verbatim from our recommendations in the course of my speech. It is for those cases in which people feel that they are falsely accused and turn out to be falsely accused, and the huge level of publicity that occurs as a result of such cases. In a sense, we should include the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the shadow Minister in these discussions, because what concerns Members of this House who are worried about the issue is the fact that people can make false accusations and as a result whole lives can be destroyed-not just the lives of the people who have been falsely accused but those of their families, too.
	As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), said in what I thought was the finest speech that she has given in this House on any subject, these are important issues that need to be discussed and explored properly. That is why I think that the Government should pause, having stated their position clearly, as the Minister has. There is a need to pause, because this decision has implications not just for rape cases but for the whole criminal justice system.
	I would probably be described as a conservative with a small c, because I believe passionately that those who are falsely accused are also victims. I do not mean those are acquitted because there is not sufficient evidence, but those who are maliciously-I think that this point was made-falsely accused of rape or any other crime or misdemeanour. It is a terrible thing to be falsely accused when those accusations are not put to the relevant person and they are not given a chance properly to respond. Unfortunately, that is how the criminal justice system works at the moment.
	We need to think very carefully before we make any extension. I am not saying that the Government have not made their case, because, as I shall show when I read out the Select Committee's recommendations, it is entirely in accordance with what the Committee recommended in 2003. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who has read the transcripts will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the decision was unanimous. Given the personalities who have sat on the Home Affairs Committee in the past 10 years, including our most distinguished former member, the Prime Minister, it is quite difficult to get unanimity, especially on issues of this kind, so we should not dismiss absolutely what the Committee said in 2003. Indeed, we should use it as the basis of a period of wider consultation.

Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I should be clear about the consultative process. We will not be having a period of formal consultation with all that that entails, but we will have a process whereby people will be able to contribute and listen. When we put out our research analysis, there will be another opportunity for that. If we need to go down the statutory route, there will not, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, be an immediate opportunity to do so.

Keith Vaz: That is most helpful. I am not sure whether the Minister has given us a timetable for the consultation period, but perhaps his colleague, the other Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will do so when he winds up. The Minister has given a timetable for the independent study into research that he is conducting, although I am not sure how independent that research will be if it is done by a director at the Ministry of Justice. If it is to be called an independent inquiry, it might be appropriate for it to be done by a former High Court judge or a serving judge rather than a civil servant-not that I cast any aspersions on the officials in my former Department, who were all fine people. They have all the minutes from previous Ministers' meetings, so we must never cast aspersions on our former civil servants. The inquiry probably will not be as independent as one would hope, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider that issue.
	I am with the Minister, however, regarding the fact that someone will be looking at the research that has been conducted or that will be conducted in the next few weeks. That is what the Stern inquiry suggested-proper, appropriate research into the false allegations issue-and that will be helpful.

Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is an equivalence between the sort of case being discussed, in which someone is accused and found innocent, and someone being raped? We seem to be making out that there is some sort of equivalence, but surely there is not.

Keith Vaz: No, there is not an equivalence-that takes the debate in the wrong way, and we need to be careful and temperate in the language that we use. There is no equivalence, but we should not forget about those who are falsely and maliciously accused but have not committed an offence of that kind. The newspapers revel in reporting allegations about offences of a sexual nature because it titillates the editorial writers in our tabloid papers. We should not forget how awful it is for someone to have a malicious rumour spread against them, but that is in no way equivalent to the rape of a man a woman, which is a terrible crime. I think that all hon. Members in the House agree on that.
	Let me read the recommendations of the Select Committee in 2003. I shall not read all of them-just the couple that are relevant to what we are discussing. The Committee said:
	"On balance, we are persuaded by the arguments in favour of extending anonymity to the accused. Although there are valid concerns about the implications for the free reporting of criminal proceedings, we believe that sex crimes do fall 'within an entirely different order' to most other crimes. In our view, the stigma that attaches to sexual offences-particularly those involving children-is enormous and the accusation alone can be devastating. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by an acquittal."
	The second relevant recommendation is:
	"We therefore recommend that the reporting restriction, which currently preserves the anonymity of complainants of sexual offences, be extended to persons accused of those offences. We suggest, however, that the anonymity of the accused be protected only for a limited period between allegation and charge. In our view, this strikes an appropriate balance between the need to protect potentially innocent suspects from damaging publicity and the wider public interest in retaining free and full reporting of criminal proceedings."
	From what the Minister said today, I gather that is what the Government are suggesting. Even though I was not chairing the Committee at the time, it would be totally churlish for me to say that the Select Committee got it wrong.

Louise Bagshawe: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the recommendations he read out referred to all sexual offences, including those involving children, and rape was not in fact singled out?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, which is why I would be keen for the Committee to revisit the issue. I shall try to make a deal on the Floor of the House with the Minister, if he is open to deals. As a former Whip, I am sure he is used to such things. A member of the Select Committee is in the Chamber. The Committee has not yet met although it will do so for the first time next week if the Government table the motion that sets us up-I cannot think why the Government have not yet set up the Select Committees.
	Will the Government please give us the opportunity to examine defendant anonymity again, in the light of what was said in 2003, in the light of their proposals and in the light of the fact that there will not be the all singing and dancing consultation that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister wanted? Will the Government give us the opportunity to look at the evidence that civil servants at the Ministry of Justice are preparing? Let us deliberate so that we can come back to the House, perhaps this year-if the Committee agrees; I am not trying to get the Committee to do anything, because it is a Committee decision-with a firm set of proposals that the whole House can discuss, rather than rushing things through. That would allow the whole House to deliberate and would enable us to look at what we said in the past in the light of the evidence of the past seven years.
	Others will come to the House in future and say that if we extend anonymity for a particular offence we must look at the whole criminal justice system and extend it for other offences. There is a powerful argument for doing that, so that such matters are kept before the courts, and not decided by the  Daily Mail and the  Daily Express. Sometimes, newspapers trash people's reputations as no court proceedings could do-I am not speaking personally of course.
	I hope that the Government will think again. Perhaps when the Minister winds up, he will give Parliament the opportunity to examine these matters more carefully.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I compliment the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on his speech. I shall come back to the content, but I largely agree with what he said and would like to add to his arguments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) ticked all the maiden speech boxes, and I congratulate him on that-except for his bigging up of Gillingham. Gillingham regularly plays Millwall, and Millwall often wins, so he cannot expect my support for the Gills, although as I go to many games I shall look out for him and entertain him willingly if he comes to any games at the Den.
	The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a comprehensive speech, on which I compliment her. Like the right hon. Member for Leicester East, she covered the ground well. She combined passion with warnings that we must proceed carefully, as I shall seek to do in my few remarks.
	The Government are to be congratulated on having brought the matter to debate early in the Parliament, and I thank my the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt),on doing so. He and his colleagues said they would do it and they have. It is right that the Government are trying to ensure that the voices of Parliament and those who communicate with us are heard, without having to hold a formal, national 12-month or two-year consultation. We can have proper processes of deliberation, and my understanding is that we have plenty of time, because the proposal is not in this year's legislative programme. It was not in the Queen's Speech, so we have at least a year to see where we want to go.
	I have one more deliberative point. There may be a case for relevant Select Committees to meet jointly to look at this matter, because clearly there is a home affairs issue and a justice issue. I hope that when the Committees are set up, the two Committees might think of doing the work together, instead of doing two separate bits of work. That would be the logical thing to do.
	I say very clearly that before I entered the House-now a long time ago-I was a practising barrister and both defended and prosecuted in serious sexual offences cases, including rape cases. That work, my work as a youth worker and my work as an MP-which has included dealing with some of the most horrendous cases of rape of people who have come to see me themselves, or of their daughters-have made me absolutely clear about the need to get the law right, and to ensure above that all we achieve the first objective: the perpetrators of these most horrendous of crimes are brought to justice. There have been too many failings of the criminal justice system as a result of which that objective has not been achieved.
	I have had to nurse several families through the fact that the criminal justice system has failed and let them down-sometimes with traumatic consequences for the individual, who as an adult has not been able to carry on trusting the system or other people. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood was right to say that very nearly all the people concerned are women-more than 90%-but occasionally there are men too, and we should not forget that such things could happen to anyone.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech. Does he agree that when there are repeat offences it is important that people are brought to justice early, because that in itself becomes a protective measure for potential future victims?

Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree with that. I was very critical, publicly and in the House, of the fact that it took so long for Ian Huntley to be brought to justice for the Soham murders, given that although he had not been convicted before, he was on the radar of the police in Lincolnshire, I think, and on Humberside, before he moved to Cambridgeshire. I was also very critical of the fact that John Worboys, who lived in my constituency, was not brought to court until he had committed at least 70 offences. I think that the police have gradually learned the lesson and are improving their system, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has relevant ministerial experience, knows, but it took a lot of work to get the police to change attitude and to take these issues much more seriously all the time. There have been many cases relating to offences in my constituency and elsewhere-in the latest one, a man who was a serial offender was arrested in relation to offences in south-west London-where the pattern of serial offending was such that clearly there could and should have been earlier intervention; the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) is quite right.
	Without repeating what others have said, let me quickly remind hon. Members of how we got to this point. In 1976, we legislated to give anonymity to complainants in rape cases. That was extended to other sex offences in 1992. In 1976 we legislated to give anonymity to defendants in rape cases for the period until 1988, when the law was then changed. After a period of just under 12 years, the law went back to where it was before, and where it remains. Since then, despite the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was a major piece of legislation, we have not changed the law in this area. The same year, the Home Affairs Committee came up with its recommendation that we should change the law, but we have not done so, and it was against that background that my party-it is not a secret-had a long debate specifically on rape at the 2006 Liberal Democrat conference, because of the concern about the low number of convictions. That was what precipitated the debate, and I want to share its conclusion because, yes, the source of this policy is indeed my party's deliberation.
	We noted that the rate of conviction is only about 5%-a figure that we have often heard and that is much lower than that in many other places in Europe. Reported rape is rising every year, but successful prosecutions are not rising; indeed, they are falling. The number of rapists who are given a caution and freed almost doubled in the previous decade. The health-related costs of rape are phenomenal, let alone the other social costs. The Sentencing Guidelines Council allowed the perpetrators of rape to avoid jail if they showed remorse-not something that I would ever countenance. Amnesty International produced a worldwide report that challenged the perception-this point was made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson)-about self-induced offences and said that it was far from the truth in most cases. Clearly, such offences are as far from any other from being self-induced.
	We also flagged up the tainting of those who were accused and then acquitted. I want to step back for a second. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House know that the people who are most vilified in prison and those in the community who are viewed with most suspicion are those accused and either convicted or not convicted of the most serious sexual offences-more so than other offences of violence, apart from the most horrible ones, such as child murder or domestic violence and the rest.

Kate Green: I accept that the vilification of sex offenders inside and outside our prisons is a factor of which we must be mindful, but it is important that we have more information on different experiences of sexual offence. The vilification of sexual offenders who have committed offences against, for example, children is quite different in my experience from how the media and the public respond to sexual offences against women-particularly, for example, young women who have been drinking or who are known to their attackers.

Simon Hughes: I accept entirely what the hon. Lady says. She is right, which is why we need to proceed with caution. These areas are both sensitive and ones in which there is still prejudice and misinformation, and it is very important to distinguish between different categories of offence and activity.
	We did not debate the whole issue of anonymity in the criminal justice system, nor other ranges of offence, but we concluded that a whole raft of changes should be made, only one of which was the proposal for anonymity. We suggested making more progress with special prosecutors for rape cases and an expansion in the number of sexual assault referral centres. Rape victims should be examined only by properly qualified forensic specialists who are trained in examining rape victims. A national rape helpline should be established. Special awareness training and education should be given to police officers and health and social care professionals to support male victims of rape. We opposed the Sentencing Guidelines Council's proposals to allow the avoidance of jail for the perpetrators of rape if they show remorse.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to continue just for a second.
	We requested that the Home Office commission a new study of why there is such a low conviction rate in England and Wales. We suggested a public information campaign to close the gap between the perception and the reality of rape. Only lastly did we suggest a change in the law-agreed after debate, discussion and a vote by a majority-to prohibit the media from identifying anyone directly or indirectly about whom a complaint of rape has been made, and until such time as they have been convicted.
	It was therefore not surprising that the Government have looked at the issue, even though I accept that it was in neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Conservative manifesto. The public did not, therefore, become engaged on the matter in the election campaign. I am not defending the fact that the proposals are in the coalition agreement, but saying clearly that I am sure that if the outcome of this deliberation and the response to the Government's policy proposal, which came from the Liberal Democrats, is a consensus in the House and around the country not to proceed, both parties are open to persuasion along that line.
	I want us to go deliberatively, because there is a strong case for changing the law, but it is not a cut-and-dried, open-and-shut case. I hope that the rest of the debate is much less partisan than the beginning of it, because this is not a party political issue- [ Interruption. ] It is absolutely not a party political issue. People outside would not understand if we took partisan positions, and I absolutely encourage the Government to think like the Lord Chancellor, who was right that a non-whipped vote would be entirely appropriate. I am in favour of many more such votes on such matters, which are not proprietarily the view of one ideological group or the next.

Glenda Jackson: rose-

Simon Hughes: Let me make my other comments. If I have time to give way to the hon. Lady at the end, I will do so very willingly.
	I want to address succinctly two wider issues that have been touched on. We must deal with the objective of maximising the number of people brought to justice for both rape and other serious sexual offences, but we must also achieve the second objective of avoiding the harmful stigma of such allegations, which can often lead to suicide, attempted suicide and the like, for which there is evidence. There are therefore two big criminal justice issues for our country-this is an England and Wales issue. We need firstly to decide whether open justice-the principle that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said should be our starting point, as it should-should be circumscribed at all. At the moment, we have done that for complainants in certain offences, but should we circumscribe open justice at all in relation to defendants? We could either do that for the category that I would call sexual offences against other people, by which I mean violent sexual assaults, which are not all rapes, or we could propose anonymity for other types of assault. I do not believe that there would be a case for inclusion for any other violent offences, and I am also not persuaded that child pornography or other such offences should be included. However, there may be a case for anonymity in cases involving sexual offences-of any type-against another.
	The second question is on the limitation of the period of anonymity. Should we have a very limited period of anonymity, for example, up until charge, a longer period, which could last to the beginning of the trial, or the longest period, which would be up to the end of the trial and conviction?
	I should like us to look very carefully and deliberatively at those two sets of options. Are we talking only about rape or about a wider set of sexual, serious, violent offences? Should anonymity last only for the period between arrest and charge or for longer? My hon. Friend the Minister and the Government want to listen to the voices and hear about the research. I hope that the House can do its duty properly and ensure that we come to the right conclusion. That will need a bit of time, but let us please not be overly partisan about it.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) hopes that this will be a non-partisan debate. The speeches that we have listened to this afternoon have been non-partisan in a party political sense. However, in relation to the policy that his Government are presenting, there is a marked lack of evidence that the proposed change is necessary, or that it would bring about any kind of improvement in convictions for rape, which, if I understood him, was at the centre of his argument.
	The hon. Gentleman also hoped that given the amount of time the Government are affording to the debate, decisions would come about by consensus in the House and the country. How can there possibly be any consensus in the country if his Government do not enter into the widest, deepest and most detailed consultation? The question remains: why have his Government selected the offence of rape? Why should alleged perpetrators of rape alone, among alleged perpetrators of other crimes of violence, be afforded anonymity? Answer has come there none.
	As we heard in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the implications of that proposal are wider if we go down that road. She touched on the issue of affording anonymity to teachers, and the hon. Gentleman's Government have again come up with no detail of the alleged offence that a teacher might have committed. She gave the graphic example-and we all know about this-of children who had been abused not only by teachers, but by members of their family or other people in authority, and the automatic response of society at the time had been to disbelieve the children, with the result that the abuse continued in an ever wider circle. I refer to the past, but from contemporary reports we know that this still goes on. The scandal of what has happened in the Catholic Church continues to reverberate. The central essential there was the idea that secrecy was all, and so the imbalance of power between the abused and the abuser was reinforced. That is my fear about this proposal and the selection of rape as the only violent act that is afforded this kind of anonymity.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister said-forgive me for paraphrasing, but I cannot remember his exact words-that it is now an accepted absolute that acts of violence against women are anathema, and that everybody in this country, this House, the criminal justice system and the police service are automatically appalled by acts of violence against women and, as a result, are immediately on the front foot, exercising all their abilities, talents and resources to track down whomsoever commits such heinous acts. We all know that that is absolute fantasy. We are witnessing at the moment one of the largest manhunts that this country has ever seen to try to track down a man who, it is alleged, has murdered one individual and shot at and injured two others. He boasted before he left prison of what he planned to do. I have no doubt that prison officials were very busy, but I am equally sure that it went into that little pocket-although it is getting bigger and bigger in my view-of something called "a domestic" in the criminal justice and police system. All it needed was for those officials in the prison to take the threats seriously, to ring the alleged perpetrator's local police station so that the police there could take those threats seriously themselves, and perhaps the largest manhunt in British history would never have needed to take place.
	There is still, as I said in an earlier intervention, a prevailing view in this country that incidents of rape, for example, are the fault of the victim- [ Interruption. ] Members opposite may groan and moan, but it is not so long ago- I remember it distinctly-that a judge who summed up in a rape case advised the victim of the rape that she should perhaps have worn a longer skirt. I am sure that that would never happen now, but I think that people still have similar thought processes.

Anna Soubry: We all agree that there should be more argument based on evidence. Where is the hon. Lady's evidence for the assertion that people still have those views of those who make complaints of rape?

Glenda Jackson: I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of the hon. Lady's question. I will give her direct evidence of a constituency case of mine, in which a woman had been systematically abused by her partner. The law acted and an injunction was laid, meaning that the perpetrator of the offences was not allowed within a certain distance of their home. What happened? His brothers took over. It is a fantasy to think that everyone in this country regards acts of violence against women as totally beyond the pale. Let us take honour killings, for instance. Does she seriously think that people who are genuinely opposed to acts of violence against women would enter into an honour killing?

Gareth Johnson: Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a huge danger, in this debate and any consultation process, of this becoming a battle of the sexes and a gender issue, when clearly it is not? Defendant anonymity and surrounding issues are about trying to impose fairness for all in the criminal justice system.

Glenda Jackson: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the evidence presented in the Chamber-obviously he is not the only person on the Conservative Benches obsessed with evidence-based decisions-shows that rape is exercised almost exclusively against women, so there is a gender base.

Anna Soubry: Some 40% of all rape complainants are either male or children, and of the 60% who are aged over 16 and female, we do not know-we do not have the statistics-how many made a complaint about something that happened to them when they were children. It is unfortunate that we do not have those statistics after 13 years of a Labour Government.

Glenda Jackson: We have already established that, as far as children are concerned, we are all in absolute agreement. That is why the question has been asked: why has an alleged rapist been afforded the privilege of anonymity, but someone who, for example, has been downloading child pornography has not? It has not been explained to me why rape is the act being afforded this particular privilege. I would argue that, if the Government go down this road, they will deeply undermine the concept of the unacceptability of rape and general acts of violence against women. Far too often, we hear of cases in which, for example, a woman has laid before the police the serious threats she is facing daily from an ex-partner. We then read that the police did absolutely nothing about it. We know of terrible incidents-one cannot say it is more terrible than when children are killed-in which such women and their children have then been killed by those partners. I have already given the example of honour killings.
	In a recent, highly publicised case of the most heinous crimes, every report began not with "Three women were murdered", but with "Three prostitutes were murdered". I return to what I believe is still a central issue here, and a reason I am so opposed to the Government's proposal: there is still the belief that attacks on women are engendered by the women themselves.

Anna Soubry: indicated dissent.

Glenda Jackson: It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. We both know of incidents in which people have not reported an incident of rape because they were drunk at the time, and they know that they would be castigated for it. Equally she knows that when women do come forward claiming to have been raped, the initial response in quite a wide circle is that they are making it up, which is why we have to be exceedingly careful about going down this road of putting rape in this special category that other violent crimes are not granted. If the Government were arguing that all violent and violent sexual crimes should be afforded anonymity, and if there was sufficiently wide consultation on the proposal-not just in the House, but in the country at large-I would be prepared to consider the Government's central argument, which is that a false accusation can damage an individual's life, their family's life, and, in some instances, their professional life. However, I entirely agree with the point that if we go down that road, we will be undermining one of the basic concepts of our criminal justice system, which is that accusation and argument in criminal cases should take place in public. I would be extremely chary of moving away from that position, but what the Government are proposing and their lack of commitment to wide consultation cause me grave concern.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made a salient point when she raised the issue of freedom of the press. That is another issue that we must consider deeply before we make any changes. However, I return to the point that I made slightly earlier, and which reinforces my contention that we are still insufficiently adamant or active and that insufficient resources are put into tackling the broader issue of acts of violence against women. I gave the example of the recent incident where three women were brutally murdered and every single news outlet began its report of the event with the words, "Three prostitutes".
	I also think that Dr Shipman would perhaps not have got away with his mass murder if his victims had been young women, as opposed to middle-aged or elderly women, because there would undoubtedly have been a desire on the part of the press-well, perhaps "desire" is an extreme word-to present the case as though these particular acts against women had a sexual undertone. In my view there is still this prevailing attitude-it might not be directly acknowledged, but it permeates so many aspects of the criminal justice system and law enforcement-when it comes to acts of violence against women, for the immediate reaction is to say, "We have to be careful about this."
	Hon. Members will know the argument about malicious accusation, but I have seen too many constituency cases and too many women and their children who have been brutalised because not enough people have taken what has been said to them sufficiently seriously, often ignoring the evidence before their eyes. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made a salient point in his maiden speech when he talked about the different approaches to such crimes in Europe, where there are special courts that are properly financed, with support for victims. That is a lesson that we should be learning in this country far more quickly than we are. I absolutely admit that we have made strides in that direction, but we need to make bigger strides and more of them.

Aidan Burley: I am grateful to you for allowing me to make my maiden speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am especially glad to be doing so in front of your good self.
	In the past few weeks I have listened to, and had the opportunity to contribute in, some excellent debates about foreign affairs, international development and the nation's finances, but I have waited to make my maiden speech in a home affairs debate. Home affairs is often not seen as a glamorous policy area. It is often overlooked and undervalued, but it is a policy area that affects everybody, all the time. We tend to notice home affairs only when things are not working properly; and let me assure the House that after 13 years of the previous Government, people in Cannock Chase have been noticing it more and more. Uncontrolled immigration, police filling in forms rather than being out on the streets, an explosion in knife crime, burglars being given more rights than the owners of the homes that they are breaking into, and a general culture of petty lawlessness and lack of responsibility have all combined to make local people feel less safe and less secure. If we are to do anything with our time in office, I sincerely hope that we will restore a sense of confidence and pride in our communities that brings with it a sense of order and security.
	Let me turn first to Cannock Chase and its predecessors. Traditionally a bell-wether seat, Cannock Chase has a long history. Cannock-or Chenet, as it was called then-was mentioned in the Domesday Book in 1086, and is thought to mean "hillock". Over the years, it has been home to kings and to coal miners. In the reign of Henry VIII, the oak-filled forest of Cannock Chase was frequented by the king and the gentry for hunting. Then came the industrial revolution and it became the petrol station of the country, with coal from its mines fuelling the factories and the nation's industries. In 1958, the Chase-the largest surviving area of lowland heath in the midlands-was designated an area of outstanding natural beauty because of its beautiful landscape, its wildlife and its history. The Chase is still home to some 800 wild fallow deer, which are descended from the original herd introduced in Norman times for hunting purposes.
	Let us fast-forward to 2010. The Chase is now famous for its mountain biking trails and its musical concerts. Since 2006, the forest has been used as an open-air music venue, hosting stars such as Jools Holland and Status Quo. In fact, I was there just two weeks ago when I took my mum and my girlfriend to see Simply Red. The constituency comprises three main towns: Cannock, Hednesford and Rugeley. Each has its own character, history and traditions. Increasingly, however, each also has its own problems. Our challenge in Cannock Chase is to restore those towns to their former glory, with shops opening rather than closing, people moving to them rather than from them, and businesses and families thriving and staying. I very much hope to be a catalyst in that regeneration.
	Cannock Chase is fortunate to have been served by hard-working and dedicated Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth)-never shy about coming forward, and always first to defend the nation's interests-began his political career there in 1983, eventually rising to become Margaret Thatcher's Parliamentary Private Secretary. Although he now finds himself representing the people of Aldershot, he is still remembered fondly by many of the constituents I spoke to during the election campaign. It is a great pleasure to see him continuing to serve the nation in his new Front-Bench role.
	More recently, the seat was in the capable hands of my predecessor, Dr Tony Wright, from 1992 until his retirement in 2010. Dr Wright was well respected on both sides of the House. He was independent minded and not afraid to stand up and criticise his own Government when he felt it right to do so. He also had a keen interest in the political process, and his most significant contribution to the House was his chairmanship of the Wright Committee. In the light of the expenses scandal, the country and the Commons cried out for real and lasting reform, and, in a calm and measured way, Tony Wright and his Committee delivered this. The recommendations in his report, which are now being implemented in full by the coalition Government, have ensured that the role and relevance of Parliament as an institution have increased, as have those of Back Benchers. In my view, he was simply one of the best parliamentarians of recent times. It is therefore no wonder that he never got to serve as a Secretary of State-only the Labour party could ignore such talent, and put its spin above his substance. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!] I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement.
	I should also like to make a brief mention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), the Government Chief Whip, known in a former life as Cannock Chase District Councillor McLoughlin. He is a former miner at Littleton colliery, and Cannock is very proud to call him one of its own.
	Cannock Chase is sometimes called the forgotten part of the west midlands. Often dismissed as a former mining town, it was ignored by the Conservatives for too long as a no-hoper, and taken for granted by Labour. People locally told me that they felt let down by Labour. One day, when I was campaigning with my great friend, ally and supporter, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)-who was key to my success in the election-an elderly lady came up to me and said, "Young man, there's only one thing worse than being let down, and that is being taken for granted." As a Conservative representing a former mining seat, I will not and cannot ever take my constituents' votes for granted.
	Before coming back to home affairs, I want briefly to mention my family. I do not come from an especially political family, but my great-grandmother was one of the first ever female councillors in Birmingham-admittedly for the Labour party-in the early 1950s. She fought one parliamentary election and eight municipal ones, and my mother and my grandmother still live in the Moseley and King's Heath wards that she stood for on three occasions before finally being elected in Longbridge. A successful café owner, in 1950, when the House of Commons kitchens were reported in the national press as running at a loss, she publicly offered to supervise the catering right here, to pay £1,000 for the privilege of doing so and still make a profit. History does not record why her offer was never taken up-[Hon. Members: "Shame."] I have with me the newspaper article that reported this incident.
	My parents both ran small businesses in manufacturing and public relations and instilled in me those small-business values of hard work and self-reliance-values that many in this country would do well to follow. Because of their hard work and success, they were able to send me to the best secondary independent school in Birmingham, King Edward's in Edgbaston. At the time, more than a third of the school comprised pupils with some form of an assisted place, which engendered an incredible atmosphere of competitive learning. I very much hope that during my time in this House, the education debates will return to the subject of selection by ability, whereby the brightest pupils are taught with their peers in exactly the same way as the best young sportsmen are intensively coached in academies to become the stars and Olympians of tomorrow.
	I talked earlier about the importance of home affairs policy, and I am delighted to speak in a debate that, to me, represents one of the continuing running sores of our criminal justice system-the continued lack of anonymity to men who are accused of rape. Let us not beat about the bush here: a false allegation of rape can ruin a man's life. Even if he is tried in a court of law and found not guilty, he will still remain suspect in many people's eyes. It is human nature to say that there is no smoke without fire, especially, it would seem, when it comes to the thorny issue of rape. It is virtually impossible for a man to survive an accusation of rape without a stain remaining on his character. There will always be whispers and rumours and slurs.
	To me, what this debate is about is very simple: it is about avoiding punishment before, and sometimes without, trial. That is why I welcome this debate on the Government's proposals to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases. For me, anonymity only until trial is not enough, because the principle of no smoke without fire still applies. Surely all hon. Members will accept the principles of equality before the law and equality between men and women. Surely all hon. Members also believe that people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
	The legal situation that exists now protects women in rape trials, but it does not protect men. It gives women anonymity, but not men. A special legal exemption has been made in the case of rape, but why has it been made just for those making the accusation? Why does that same protection not apply to those who are being accused? If we are singling out this particular area of the criminal justice system for special treatment, why should it not apply equally to both men and women? Male defendants should be afforded the same protections as women making the accusations because every man is innocent until he is proven guilty. If women need anonymity for this particular type of case, so do men.
	We would all agree that men who are convicted of rape should have their names made public. Convicted rapists should be known and should face the consequences of their actions in respect of public opinion towards them. All that the Government's proposals mean is simply that a man will face those social penalties after he has been convicted of the offence rather than facing advanced trial by others who will always think that there is no smoke without fire. In high-profile cases, this will also avoid trial by media in advance of trial by court.
	I have listened to all the arguments made today, but I still do not understand why some Labour Members oppose this simple reform. I have heard that if men are given anonymity, it might somehow discourage other women from coming forward, but let us not forget that guilty men will still be exposed when convicted. If anything, the change should encourage more women to come forward because they will have seen that a conviction has been successful.
	There is, of course, a strong argument for having no anonymity at all in any legal case. Anyone who believes in a completely open system of justice would agree with that, but the reality is that exceptions have already been made in cases involving children or women making accusations of rape. Surely if a male defendant in rape cases is innocent, he is just as vulnerable as they are. Why are women and children vulnerable, but not men? No one on the Opposition Benches has answered that today. The law is the law, and it should treat men and women equally dispassionately or equally protectively. That is why we should either remove the right of anonymity for women, which no one is suggesting, or we should extend that right to men under precisely the same principle that extends it to women. In this, the mother of all Parliaments, we should do everything that we can to avoid punishment before, and sometimes without, trial.

Meg Munn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). I must say that during his speech I found myself wishing that we could go back in time and see Cannock Chase in the days that he described. I regularly travel from Birmingham northwards, as my husband comes from Birmingham, and I have never thought of Cannock Chase in those terms, but I will do so in future. The hon. Gentleman paid a full and correct tribute to Tony Wright, whom we all miss, and who, as he rightly said, has left us with an important legacy. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his pursuit of home affairs, but, unusually, following a maiden speech, I will be disagreeing with him on several issues, although I will do so in the customary fashion in this House.
	I want to make a few points in this enormously important debate. I am worried that the Government's policy is ill thought out. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) dealt well with the issue. The Government should think again, and carefully, about the matter. No one in this Chamber underestimates the impact on a person of a false accusation of rape or any other crime. In my many years in social work, I worked not only with many victims of sex offenders but with sex offenders themselves, and on a few rare occasions witnessed first hand the impact of what subsequently turned out to be an unproven accusation.
	Over the years, I have watched the situation for those complaining of rape improve, fortunately. Some Members of a similar age will recall-some Members, happily, are younger and will not-that back in the 1980s some television programmes were made in the Thames valley about police interviewing rape complainants. Many people were rightly horrified to see the general attitude of disbelief, which was one reason for the low reporting of cases. Fortunately, much has changed since that time, although not as much as we might like. However, the successful prosecution rate for rape continues to be of significant concern. In such situations, to protect people from false allegations, we must expect good investigation and evidence gathering. In a number of cases of false allegations of which I have heard, that has not been the case. Adopting a general position of belief, which is essential, does not mean ignoring the importance of good investigation and evidence gathering.
	Let us be clear: this crime is not only heinous, but enormously difficult, for many reasons, to investigate. It is difficult for victims to talk about. None of us would welcome having to talk about sexual matters-even those on a consensual basis-but talking about an attack or crime of such a nature to people one does not know, and to have to go into intimate details, is very difficult. Rightly, we have talked about children being involved, and I dealt with that on a professional basis for many years. How do children explain what has happened to them when they might not even have the necessary words? How do they talk about it when they might feel that people are looking at them as if they have done something wrong themselves? We must take that into account.
	Even when adults are involved, we are talking about a situation in which perhaps only two people were present and there were no other witnesses. We are talking about one person's word against another's. Even when, according to any objective judgment, a woman has done nothing wrong, she will still be asking herself, "Did I do something wrong? Did I invite this in some way?" We as a society must say, "No means no. Rape is not acceptable. Sexual relationships without consent constitute rape, and should be subject to prosecution." However, the difficulties involved cannot be underestimated, and the situation must therefore be approached very carefully.
	It is important that we adopt a position of belief, because, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, too many people have not been believed in the past. If it is felt that the first thing victims must do is prove that something has happened to them, even fewer women will come forward, and children will not summon up what is an almost impossible level of courage to speak up and say, "Something happened to me." I have watched people who have been abused trying to give evidence in court. I shall never forget seeing a young woman who had been abused while in a children's home, standing there petrified and trembling, almost unable to give evidence. In such circumstances, the position of victims is very difficult.
	The issue of offending behaviour involves a great many myths. We talk about rape as if it suddenly appears out of nowhere, but someone who commits rape may well have previously committed other, lesser, sexual offences. I use the word "lesser" in relation to the criminal process, not in relation to the impact on the victim. The offender may have tested a situation, or fantasised about it, before committing the offence. In many cases, a pattern of behaviour has been formed.
	That is one reason why those of us who oppose anonymity after charge-anonymity before charge is a different matter-consider it important to do so. Someone who comes forward and says "This happened to me too" provides corroboration of that pattern of behaviour, and leads people to feel that they can believe what is being said. As I said earlier, if just two people are involved it is one person's word against another's. If a pattern of behaviour has been established and people provide detailed corroboration, it becomes possible to proceed with a prosecution.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady is always listened to seriously and with respect. May I ask whether she has reflected on my earlier suggestion to her hon. Friend the. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that what leads to more women coming forward is not necessarily the information that an individual lives at a certain address, is a certain height or has hair of a certain kind, but may be a pattern of behaviour? That is information that can be shared immediately, and the police often do share it just to get people to come forward, as indeed they should.

Meg Munn: I agree. In my experience, it is possible during the investigative process-in which, as I have said, I have been involved on the social work side-to question people who may have been in contact with the person concerned, without necessarily naming that person. For example, it is possible to contact previous residents of a children's home and ask, "Did anything ever happen to you that gave you cause for concern?" Conducting the investigative process properly protects against false charges, or charges that turn out to be false.
	We must look at this situation in the round, and we have to say, "This is too important not to have a formal consultation." I have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have been prepared to discuss this more, and to accept that the nine words that were in the coalition document are not sufficient, but I plead with them to have a formal consultation. This is a matter that deserves to be addressed with that level of seriousness.
	I gently say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase that this is not a gender issue. Many victims are men and boys. Indeed, one concern is that boys who were abused as children find it particularly difficult to come forward and say they have been abused, because there is still the stigma that means they might be called gay. Sometimes-but not always by any means, as this is not a direct correlation-victims who have had something terrible done to them as children go on to become perpetrators because they do not know the rightful place of sexual relationships in adult situations. We talk about the lifelong effects of sexual abuse-that is one of them, and we should take it very seriously.
	That points to another reason why it is enormously important that people have the confidence to come forward early and say they have been abused. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned the impact on families. If people come forward early, it stops there being future victims. We must constantly bear down on this issue to stop there being future victims and to stop the cycle of sexual abuse continuing.
	I ask Ministers to answer the following questions again and in greater detail. Why rape? Why not all sexual offences? Also, why has this proposal been put forward at all if not because of the issue of false allegations? The Minister said very clearly that it was not based on the issue of false allegations, but he did not tell us what it was based on.
	This debate deserves greater clarity, not more confusion, which is what we got from the Minister today. The matter under discussion is complex and important, and we need to take time over it. We need the Select Committees to take a look at it, and we need a proper public consultation so that everybody who has a story to tell and every agency that has worked with people affected by this can respond and put forward their views.
	I understand how the proposal may have emerged. It might, perhaps, have happened without enough thought and late at night when people had not had any sleep during the period when the coalition agreement was put together fast. That does not have to bind us to carrying the proposal through, however, and to making a decision that would be detrimental to the people we should be caring about, whether victims or offenders. I ask Ministers to think again.

Anna Soubry: May I begin by thanking the Minister, as I know he has listened to many of us who do not support all of the Government's proposals in this matter? I know that he has made movement, too, and I am very grateful for that, and I am also sure that he will continue to listen to all that is said on this topic. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has had to leave the Chamber, because I also want to say, with great respect to her, that I think she is living in the past.
	I pay tribute to the last Government for the great strides they took in ensuring that justice was done for all those who make a complaint of either rape or sexual assault. I work as a criminal barrister-I say I work as one, because I like to think I can still do the occasional case-and I have been in practice for some 16 years. I very rarely prosecute as I have a defence practice, and I have defended many men who have been accused of rape or sexual assault. On one occasion, I defended a woman who was accused of rape. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), this is not a gender argument-that has been identified by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). We know the statistics and they are poor-we wish they were a lot better. However, as I have said in an intervention, we know that 60% of the people who make a complaint of rape are females over the age of 16, and that 40% are children-that includes males.
	I echo what the hon. Lady said about young men making complaints about rape. I was involved in a case where I defended a man who was accused of the persistent and long-term buggery of a young man whom he had adopted. That young man did not make his complaint until he had run away from home-understandably. At the age of 18 he came forward to complain about this dreadful abuse, and my client was convicted. There is no way that that young man would have come forward to make his complaint if he had thought for one moment that his name would ever appear in the newspapers.
	It is important that we all understand that there is no such thing as anonymity in a criminal justice system, save with one very rare exception; there are certain cases where the prosecution, with great care and after a lot of thought, applies to a learned judge that a witness in a particular case should have complete, true anonymity, so that their name is not known to the defendant or, indeed, to anybody else in the court. It is a bit of a myth that there is a long queue of women who somehow enjoy complete anonymity and can make up false allegations, knowing that their name will never be known. As all of us who have practised in the criminal justice system know, on an indictment the name of the complainant is there. It is a sad moment in court when one sits there, an indictment is put to a defendant and the name of the child is read out-the name is given as "a child under the age of 13" or "a child under the age of seven". So there is no such thing as the anonymity of complainants.
	There is also no such thing-I would hope-as the anonymity of defendants. As has been said, we are talking about a prohibition on publication of name. I know that I am of some age, but when I worked as a journalist many years ago the name of somebody who had been arrested was never publicised. What has happened, in reality, is that too many police officers have decided that it would be in their interests-I say no more than that-to release the name of somebody who has been arrested, especially somebody in the public eye.
	I want to nail a bit of a myth that suggests that it is only the accusation of rape which casts such a terrible slur on someone's reputation. I am not diminishing, for one moment, the appalling trauma involved, especially for young men-I am talking about those whom I have defended, who were often not the brightest or the most resourced-of often waiting for more than a year before the Crown rightly and properly decides not to proceed. We should never underestimate the trauma for those young men and their families when they are facing that charge. I believe that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that the sentencing guidelines say that if someone has been convicted of rape and they express some remorse, they would not get a custodial sentence, but with respect, that is not right. My understanding of the sentencing guidelines is that the starting point, even on a guilty plea, is a sentence of some four to five years. It is that very knowledge that adds to the great trauma of young men, notably, who face an allegation of rape, but many other people who face other allegations are also traumatised by that and by the criminal process.
	For example, I am told that two city councillors in Nottingham were arrested on charges of fraud or some other misdemeanour. The fact that they were never charged never appeared on the front page of the  Nottingham Evening Post-I think it was slipped away on page 6 or in some such place. That allegation was hugely damaging to their reputation. I can think of all other sorts of examples-dentists or doctors might be accused of something and arrested, their names could be published and again their reputations would be sullied.
	As so many others have said, I urge the Minister to consider with great care why he is singling out rape. I know the point is not lost on him that the accusation could be made that, for some reason, we on this side of the House do not believe in the proper prosecution of people who rape women, who rape young men and who rape children, whereas we all know that we take it seriously. I am grateful to have heard all the proposals that have been put forward by the Minister about the need to support people when they make allegations of rape.
	Rape, like all criminal offences, falls into many different categories. I have touched on the fact that a significant number of the people who complain about rape are children. We also know that a significant number of the 60% of complainants who are females over 16 must be making complaints about what happened to them when they were children-that is, historic allegations of abuse. It is unfortunate that we do not have those figures; we should.
	We know that there is a big difference between somebody walking along a street or a road who is attacked by a complete stranger and the other category of rape complaint, which relates to two people who are known to each other. Again, it is not as simple as it is often portrayed. They might be known to each other because they work together, so there is some sort of relationship, or because they have met in a public house and exchanged words. They might be known to each other because they have been married to each other for a considerable length of time or because they have been in some sort of relationship. They might be known to each other because they have gone out for the first time on a date and because something has occurred that has caused that woman to make a complaint of rape. It is a fiendishly complicated issue and we cannot take a broad-brush approach and say that all allegations of rape fall into the same category. They profoundly do not.
	In the little time I have left, I want to touch on one issue that concerns me. Again, I know from what I am told that there is a real problem with a lack of good sound evidence. I am afraid that the Minister will have to rely on a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I have no doubt from my practice and from talking to other members of the Bar and to members of the judiciary that when a name is put into the public domain other complainants come forward. There are many instances of it. I know from my practice that when the name of a priest who was arrested went into the local newspaper, other women came forward who had been to him and to whom he had been their minister. When they knew that others had made a complaint, they came forward. That tendency should not be underestimated.
	As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had the good fortune to be drawn in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I know that in addressing this Chamber I must not touch too much on what I hope to say when we discuss the Bill, but I ask the Minister to consider allowing anybody who is arrested to enjoy the privilege, almost, of not having his or her name published in the press. I believe that we can do that effectively and efficiently while still allowing the prosecution to apply to a judge, depending on the particular circumstances of an offence, for the name to be published. We must allow our judges to exercise their discretion, which they usually do, when they are allowed to do their jobs, particularly well.
	The last Government did a great deal to redress what was clearly the wrong balance, with women not being believed, best evidence not being gathered and so on. However, I am bound to say that I think that in some respects the balance has been tipped too far. Those of us who practise at the criminal Bar are concerned about the number of prosecutions that continue when we know that, if the allegation was not of rape or sexual assault, they would not proceed. We have to make sure that when the police investigate an allegation, they do not involve themselves. With great respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, it is not a question of the police officer who investigates the allegation believing the complainant. That is not their role or job.

Meg Munn: This is a very important point. I was saying not that the police officer had to believe the complainant, but that their initial approach when someone comes to the police station should be to adopt an attitude from the outset that that person has something relevant to say that is likely to be true. That does not mean that they should put aside all the issues of evidence.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The correct word, which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for supplying, is "empathy". I have no trouble at all with police officers who are not involved with the investigation, and all the support services, giving support to the complainant, but it is absolutely imperative that the police officer or officers involved in the case should be of the right rank. I have seen too many cases involving someone who has probably just become a police constable-other learned hon. Members are saying, "Hear, hear!", because we barristers have had almost daily experience of this. It is also imperative that the police should apply the same standards to complainants in rape and sexual assault cases as in any other case. Some of us have been greatly disturbed by changes in policy codes that seem to suggest that there should be a different standard and test when deciding whether to prosecute in rape and sexual assault cases, because there should not be. If we do all that, there is a good chance that the rape conviction rate, although it is very good-we should get those figures sorted out; perhaps other hon. Members will enlighten us-will rise. I urge the Minister to continue consulting, and perhaps my private Member's Bill could, with the backing of both sides of the House, be the perfect solution.

Caroline Flint: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I feel that it might not be too long before she is elevated to the Front Bench. In addressing the debate, she demonstrated what she brings from her experience, as well as her thoughtfulness.
	I congratulate the hon. Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on making their maiden speeches. They chose an interesting debate in which to do so. May I suggest that the debate could, as they start their apprenticeships in the House, be seen as a master class in how not to develop Government policy? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) forensically took apart the Minister's opening statement. As the debate is entitled "Defendant Anonymity", I had hoped that the opening statement would allow discussions to go in a different direction. I thought that the Minister might say, "We've thought about this and we may have been wrong to single out rape defendants, so today gives us scope to talk about this on a wider basis." Unfortunately, however, the Minister has reaffirmed the determination to focus on anonymity for defendants in rape trials, and that is regrettable.
	We have had many debates in the House since the general election, including heated and passionate debates on how to cut the deficit, on electoral reform and on the number of MPs we should have, and only this week we have had the statement about which schools will go ahead in the Building Schools for the Future programme-or not, as the case may be. However, few of those issues have provoked the reaction that greeted the proposal to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. Little did right hon. Members who are now in government know, all those weeks ago when they were holed up in meetings in the Cabinet Office thrashing out the details of the coalition agreement, the maelstrom that nine words on page 24 would cause. I am afraid that the policy of singling out rape has little evidence to justify it, and that has been confirmed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The policy, in isolation, really does not help the justice system or victims, and Ministers have been saying different things about it from one day to the next.
	When the law on giving anonymity to defendants in rape cases last applied, it created a legal quagmire. It was a mess, where those accused of inciting rape were given anonymity but not those who conspired to it. The names of defendants charged with aiding and abetting rape were known, but not the names of those charged with burglary with intent to commit rape. The public knew the names of those who had planned to rape but failed, but did not know the names of those who had succeeded. It is an incredibly complicated area, not only for rape but for other offences, should we go down that route-I have sympathy with the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe on expanding that aspect. Let us be in no doubt, however: any movement on the issue, in any direction, will create a lot of controversy. We must be careful about unforeseen consequences.
	No one seems able to explain why we need to give rape suspects anonymity in the first place. As has been said, singling out rape defendants sends a devastating message to the victims of rape-that, uniquely, among all other complainants, they are not to be believed, even when Home Office research shows that false allegation rates are no higher for rape than for any other crime.
	The proposal touches on what is meant by false allegation. Philip Rumney, of Sheffield Hallam university, provides the best definition I have come across. He says that
	"a false allegation can be defined as the description of an event that the complainant knows never actually occurred"
	suggesting
	"a conscious or malicious motive on the part of the complainant."
	Those two elements-the fact that the complainant knows that what she or he is alleging never actually happened and the malicious motive-distinguish genuine false allegations from other cases when the complaint is withdrawn rather than retracted, when there is insufficient evidence, or when as we know, sadly, that owing to mental health problems the complainant genuinely believes that they have been attacked.
	We have not even talked about other vulnerable victims, who often face cynicism about their complaint. Many people with learning disabilities have not been believed. Elderly people suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia may find it hard to convey what has happened to them and-I am sorry to say-may be dismissed when they come forward or talk to family and friends about what they have experienced.
	There is already evidence that too many cases are wrongly classified as false allegation. That is a problem and we need research to make sure that recording is clear, not only for rape but for other crimes too. I think that the police and prosecutors have made huge progress in that area, particularly when they have specialist training, so I do not want the House to misinterpret what I am saying. However, Home Office research in 2005 found that the police displayed
	"a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals,"
	thereby feeding a damaging culture of scepticism, which deters victims from coming forward to seek justice. The proposal is likely only to harden such attitudes, when we should be challenging them.
	The only other possible justification for the proposal is that the damage associated with being accused of rape is of a completely different order to every other crime. Members have cited other crimes when a person who was falsely accused felt justly aggrieved and distressed, and the result was suicide or other action that caused distress to their family. It is not credible to suggest that being accused of rape is uniquely devastating, in a way that being accused of domestic violence, murder, sexually abusing children, or even defrauding a popular charity are not.
	We have witnessed the rather bizarre spectacle of Ministers coming to the House, or writing to Members, asking them to provide evidence to support the Government's policies. I know that times are hard and Departments are facing cuts of up to 40%, but if the Government are not able to find evidence to support their own policies, it is not our job to do so. Indeed, a month ago the Minister wrote to me requesting evidence and asked me to provide it within a week. I am pleased to tell the House that I was able to meet his deadline, but I am less pleased to have to inform the House that I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps I should have insisted on a deadline for comments from the Minister.
	In response to my Adjournment debate the Minister said that the Government would proceed on the evidence, and no one doubts the need for more and better research. Baroness Stern made that point very eloquently in her review earlier this year; but she said that the evidence needs to be looked at before the policy is decided. The coalition has committed itself to granting anonymity to rape defendants before even looking at the evidence. That suggests to me that the Government are proceeding not on the evidence, but on the basis of a misconception.

Crispin Blunt: If I have not formally thanked the right hon. Lady for the letter, let me put that on the record now. I assure her that I was not anticipating evidence from her in support of the Government's position; it was really a challenge for her to come forward with evidence, on the basis of the issues that I raised in the Adjournment debate and have repeated today. If there is evidence that would cause us to rethink, let us have it. We are looking for it and we will publish our analysis by 28 July.

Caroline Flint: I certainly was not seeking to provide evidence to support the Government's position. I was providing evidence to explain why the Government's position was wrong. What I have failed to receive is evidence from the Government as to why they are pursuing this singular policy of anonymity for rape defendants.
	In one of Baroness Stern's 23 recommendations-I hope that the Government will give the other 22 equal time and priority-she asks that there should be research, and
	"that the Ministry of Justice commissions and publishes an independent research report to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences, and the nature of such allegations."
	She was saying that the matter should be looked at in the round.
	As I said earlier, I am sad today that the opportunity was not taken by the Government to knock this coalition proposal on the head and move us into an area where we could find some consensus and agreement across all parts of the House.

Simon Hughes: In that context, if the evidence that Baroness Stern and others have asked for is forthcoming, in the form of further research, would the right hon. Lady be prepared to look at the idea that goes more broadly than rape? Is she willing to accept, at least in principle, that there may be a case for anonymity in other categories, not single-offence categories?

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I actually made that point in my contribution to the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and I am open to that. What I am not prepared to accept is moving in that direction until the coalition Government have clearly stated that it was wrong to focus on rape, and that they have learned from the contributions and the pressure and the lobbying from Members in all parts of the House to change that viewpoint. That is because I think that it is really important to send a message to the country that when someone gets something wrong, they should say that they have got it wrong. A lot of organisations, which are listening to this debate, are very concerned about the message that was sent from that coalition agreement about the attitudes to victims when reporting rape, and the assumption that they, more than for any other crime, might be guilty of making false allegations.
	An issue has been raised in this debate about equality between defendants and complainants. In a report in  The People on 27 June, it was stated that the Government planned to extend anonymity to defendants in all cases where the victim is not named, under the cover of ensuring "equality before the law." Equality before the law does not and cannot mean identical treatment for defendant and complainant. There is a vast array of ways in which the criminal justice system already, and rightly, treats defendants and complainants differently. Both should be treated fairly, but that does not mean identically; if that were the case, presumably we would no longer afford the defendant the advantage of the burden of proof, and complainants would have to be held on bail or in custody before their case came to court. The suggestion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of why victims of rape are given anonymity in the first place, and that has been expressed very eloquently by colleagues in today's debate.
	It is not credible to suggest either, as the Lord Chancellor has done, that protecting the identity of the defendant protects the identity of the complainant. Just because most attackers are known to the victim does not mean that the victim would be immediately identifiable from the attacker's name being known. It could be a boss at work; it could be someone they meet on the bus every day; it could be someone they know in the nightclub, or a friend of a friend.
	It is in the public interest that the victims of rape come forward and report their crimes, so that rapists do not escape prosecution and are prevented from attacking other victims. There is no equivalent public interest in allowing defendants to remain anonymous. That does not mean that I do not understand the damage that false allegations can cause. We have already heard during today's debate about a case where someone was tried for making a false allegation and-I think that I heard correctly-got two years in prison. That is a serious sentence for a serious crime.
	As I have said, there may well be a case for looking at whether all defendants-not just those in rape cases, or even in cases that involve sexual offences-should be afforded anonymity until they are charged, but I am afraid that that was not the coalition's proposal. I am still not clear whether the Government will pursue that proposal. Certainly, one thing is clear: if we wanted to consider that wider debate, the way to start it was not to focus on rape at the outset. That has been completely unproductive. The only way that we could start such a debate is for the Government to make a clear statement-today offered the ideal opportunity to do so-accepting that they were wrong to single out rape defendants and acknowledging the damage that that has done.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said earlier, there have been very real improvements in the way that victims of rape can expect to be treated in the criminal justice system, but there is some way to go. As Dave Whatton, the chief constable of Cheshire constabulary and the senior police officers' lead on this matter said at the all-party meeting yesterday, the single biggest challenge that the police face is still the lack of confidence among victims, which stops them from reporting their attack and prevents rapists from being brought to justice.
	The Government must surely now realise that their proposals would make women less likely to come forward and, I am afraid, embed a dangerous culture of scepticism, when so much has been done to improve trust between the victims of rape and the criminal justice system. We need an informed debate. There should be at least a Green Paper, so that we can discuss the issue in detail, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that in summing up.

Sarah Wollaston: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on her speech and on the passion with which she spoke during the Adjournment debate that she initiated. Many right hon. and hon. Members have brought special expertise to the debate, either as barristers or from a background in social work. My background is that I am a doctor. For five years, I was a forensic medical examiner for Devon and Cornwall police and spent many long nights with women and some men who had been the victims of horrendous sexual and physical violence. I have also been a family doctor for many years and have been a practitioner for 24 years in total.
	I have lost count of the number of women-they are mostly women-whom I have seen who have not made an allegation of rape. The reasons are many and complex. I can testify that the vast majority of those crimes go unreported, because of misplaced feelings of guilt, real fear of reprisals, a belief that the victims will not be believed and, in many cases, just a sense that they want to put something so horrible in a box on the shelf and never visit it. That is the truth of the matter.
	I pay tribute to the many women who have the courage to go forward and make a complaint. I want to point out something that the women saw had in common. Many of them told me that the reason they were going through what is, quite frankly, a very unpleasant examination after a horrendous experience was not for themselves, but because they believed that it would protect other women. I ask the Minister to consider why those women would report a rape if they thought that there was no possibility that other women might benefit.
	I completely understand the many arguments made in favour of protecting the innocent who are subject to false allegations, but we need to remember that the odds are heavily stacked in their favour. For every 100 women I saw-I believed the vast majority of them-I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who had their day in court and saw a conviction. We need to be clear that the scales are already tipped in favour of the defendant in a rape case. We need to be very careful that we do not add a further barrier to women coming forward and making allegations.
	The second point I should like to make is on the difficulty in this country with serial offenders. Many hon. Members have referred to John Worboys, who drugged his victims in the back of his taxi, but let us be clear that the No. 1 date rape drug remains alcohol. Many rape offenders are serial offenders-they are frequent fliers. When I examined women in the presence of police, it became clear that many of those whom the women named as the person who had attacked them were known to the police and had form. We need to be careful that we do not put further barriers in the way of identifying such people so that others can come forward with their experiences.
	Those were the two main points that I wanted to make today. Many hon. Members have said that this is not a gender issue, and I agree. However, we need to be careful that we do not make it a political issue. I have some reservations about the way in which some Members have tried to make it so. I would like the Minister to consider free votes, because that is the best way to take the political heat out of the argument and to focus on the real issue of who we want to protect. I request that he look carefully at my suggestion.

Stella Creasy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this debate, which is on an important and sensitive subject. I am very honoured to take part in a debate in which so many hon. Members have so much experience to contribute to our thinking. My desire to speak reflects my personal concern that the current proposals are both unworkable and, more importantly, counter-productive to our shared stated aim of achieving better outcomes for rape victims and justice for our society as a result.
	This is a difficult debate to participate in, not least because it is still not clear what measures the Government intend to introduce. What has been published on the proposed legislation poses a number of questions. For example, what does anonymity actually mean? Are we talking about printed or public or local knowledge of a case? How could that be secured at any level? Inevitably, as hon. Members have said, people in the criminal and legal system will know, or be able to secure access to, the identity of an accused person, as part of the day-to-day functioning of our court systems. Given the concerns about the relationship between our courts, our media and our criminal system, which were admirably outlined by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the difficulty of enforcing anonymity is a clear challenge to the proposals.
	Moreover, how far would the anonymity have to go to be sustainable? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) pointed out, what if somebody is accused of a number of interrelated offences? Would co-defendants be covered? They might be accused of less serious crimes, such as aiding and abetting, but would they be given anonymity to protect another defendant? What would it mean for a case if the name of a defendant or co-defendant became public? Those questions go alongside more important ones that we need to tease out. Would anonymity apply at arrest, charge or trial? It is clear that the nine words in coalition document have stirred up a hornets' nest, and I am grateful that we are having this debate to try to tease those things out. I hope that the Minister will answer the many questions that right hon. and hon. Members have asked.
	It has been said that the measure needs to be introduced because the offences in question are so distinct that to accuse people of them falsely is to destroy lives. As others have asked today, why only rape? Why are teachers accused of such offences in a category alone? The inclusion of teachers reflects the fluidity of the thinking and its inconsistency. If anonymity throughout a criminal case were possible and desirable, could we define and measure the social penalty of being accused of a crime, or being exonerated, including before charges were made, in a manner that was satisfactory to all concerned? Anthropologists will tell us how shame, as a concept, contributed to many different accusations. It can be argued, as many in the debate have, that false accusations of paedophilia, murder, serious violence, hate crimes or domestic violence can just as easily destroy somebody's life and those of their loved ones. Indeed, why are teachers alone in our public services afforded such protection? Why not doctors or care workers?
	The debate is about more than legal semantics, and Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about the proposals care for more than intellectual consistency. It is clear that they are also worried that giving those accused of rape anonymity and not those accused of any other crime sends the message that rape is different and separate. In doing so, the proposals take us backwards as a society in addressing rape rather than help us to make progress. Furthermore, the proposal flies in the face of the evidence available to us about the nature of rape and how it is prosecuted. We do not have enough data on false accusations.
	Many hon. Members have already referred to the excellent report on this issue by Baroness Stern, which identifies many of the challenges that we face with this crime. Above all, her report tells us that if victims do have the courage to come forward, and are willing to go through the criminal justice system, conviction rates are improving and justice is possible. But her report also highlights the fundamental problem of the high level of attrition of cases, and that is why we should be extremely cautious about doing anything that could make the process even harder. It also makes the case for looking again at how rape is handled by the criminal justice system.
	The test for this proposal must be whether the intended benefits it could offer outweigh the risks that it poses to detection and prosecution of rape. The benefits of the proposal could be strong only if we could prove that the false reporting of rape is systematic and widespread above and beyond that of any other crime in our criminal justice system. As Baroness Stern herself argues, we simply do not know that, and we do not have enough evidence about the false reporting of rape to make such a judgment. She rightly argues-and many hon. Members have agreed-that we need more research on that issue. Crucially, she also asks for more research into the false reporting of all offences instead of singling out rape. I hope that that is a point that Ministers will address in the research that they are conducting, so that we have a greater understanding of the incidence of false reporting across the criminal justice system.
	The lack of evidence is partly due to the difficulty of defining a false accusation, as many hon. Members have pointed out, and whether such accusations are malicious. Another issue is how incidents are marked as "not crimed" in the system and the danger of using that as a proxy for evidence of false allegations of rape.
	If we do not have the evidence, and the Government claim that this proposal is not about dealing with false allegations, where has it come from? We are all aware of the media coverage that this topic has generated-much heat but not much light. The coverage is selective. I have recently made representations on behalf of a constituent who was tried for making a false allegation only to be acquitted, and now finally charges are being brought against the attacker. That case raises many serious concerns about the ability of our justice system to deal with rape, and the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in addressing complaints about how such crimes are investigated. I am continuing to pursue those complaints, but to have struggled for justice for so long in such a context must have been extremely difficult. To ask victims to come forward and report rape in an environment in which the law enshrines the notion that some victims will lie would be even harder.
	No one suggests that being accused of rape is not a serious matter, but to presume that-unlike in any other crime-an allegation could be based on lies, the Government are on dangerous ground if they do not have the evidence to support the policy. It also stands in contrast to the evidence that publicising the report of a rape can be vital in the prosecution of cases. Several hon. Members have already highlighted the shocking statistics on the reporting of rape and the concerns that that will be adversely affected by giving those accused of the crime anonymity. Whether in the cases already mentioned of Worboys and Reid, or those involving individuals who knew their attackers, there is strong evidence that public accusations can give other victims the confidence to come forward and report their experiences.
	The question of how cases are put together is not incidental but integral to the debate and the danger of these proposals. As investigations in the difficult area of proving a lack of consent can often involve very vulnerable people, we must be sensitive to what can be done to support them.
	An interesting study by the Metropolitan police from 2005 found that 87% of those reporting rape had at least one of four vulnerabilities-being under 18, having mental health problems, having ingested alcohol before being raped and of having been or being in a relationship with their attacker. As the report points out, those add to the considerable complexities of prosecution and increase the chances of the withdrawal of a case early in the process. As I have said, I am concerned about the way in which cases are handled by our criminal justice system, something that the police have also put on the record in their conversations with the Eaves Partnership in London. The police acknowledge that
	"the majority of cases are lost during the investigation process for a number of reasons including victims' loss of faith in the process, the length of time the investigation takes, lack of communication between police and victims."
	To add into that mix a presumption of dishonesty could only make it harder for all concerned to take the journey towards justice. Indeed, if research is to be done, it should, in order to flesh out fully the challenges we are talking about, take into account not simply the concept of rape, but the outcomes and causes behind the complaint, whether the police felt that the victim would not be able to go to trial, whether evidence was gathered well enough to stand up in court, whether the victim withdrew their complaint, and whether the individual was tried. I suspect that, if we are able to gather such data, the picture would be very different from that being painted in the reporting of rape allegations and in the language used by some when talking about the subject.
	Given that this proposal could deter victims from coming forward, we should work harder to explore other options that do not make a presumption about the likelihood that a complainant has lied about such a crime. Yesterday, Baroness Stern called for more work to be done to establish whether the existing guidance on anonymity in rape cases from the Association of Chief Police Officers has been followed, and if not, why not. I hope the Minister will also take up that point. Above all, I urge the House to search its soul in this debate. The question is not whether it is feasible to give some rape defendants anonymity and not others; we must ask why we are still struggling to bring those who commit such offences to justice and how we can address this problem. If we do that, we will see that proposals for anonymity are not part of the solution.
	The problems are complex, but there are several indications of where action could be taken. I come to this debate as a London MP faced with extremely troubling statistics on prosecution of rape in the capital which show that our conviction rate is well below the success rate in other metropolitan areas. That is why I welcome the move to Sapphire units and co-ordination across London. The reality is that staffing such units is especially hard in outer London, in areas such as mine, where officers receive little recognition for taking on such work, in contrast with other roles within our police force.
	We should also learn from the Payne review and George Alberti's research, and offer more support for victims. I would favour the extension of the role of independent sexual violence advisers as distinct from police or other criminal justice officers. We must also be mindful of the funding for rape crisis centres, which face a struggle for existence under the new Administration. Indeed, I fear, under the new Government's public services spending freeze, that it will be harder, not easier, for specialised units for rape and sexual assault victims to improve conviction rates and bring rapists to justice, given that they are already under-staffed, under-resourced and lacking specialised rape lawyers. I hope that Ministers will today make a commitment, given their interest in this subject, to ensure that those services are properly funded and protected.
	In conclusion, I urge the Government to turn their attention from the tabloid headlines, and instead focus on addressing these challenges. The Government's proposal would give credence, without any evidentiary foundation, to the idea that lying is an aspect of this crime and not any other. I can see that others across the House agree with me, and I appeal to them to work with us to raise these concerns. As legislators, we must not send out the message, however unintended, that we think that those who come forward to report rape are more likely to mislead than any other alleged victim of crime. As members of society, we must work together to protect the vulnerable and hear the voices of victims with an open mind. A public consultation would guarantee and encourage that. I urge the Minister to change his mind and ensure that we hear those voices in this debate.

Robert Buckland: It is a great honour to make a contribution to a debate that has been singularly well informed, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who made a particularly useful contribution, but by the very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has an almost unique perspective on these matters. It is a perspective slightly different from mine: I spent many years slightly further down the food chain, dealing with both the prosecution and defence of serious sexual crimes in the Crown court, including the abuse of children, rape and other offences of a sexual nature, involving both males and females.
	It is perhaps inevitable that a debate about defendant anonymity has been dominated by the issue of the treatment of the victims of rape and the investigation of that very serious crime. That is not a criticism-in fact, it is a rather welcome development. It is inevitable because the focus of the proposal in the coalition document was centred on rape. That was a mistake. The points made about broadening the ambit of the anonymity question are right. Perhaps the most important point made today, however, was the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe: the word "anonymity" is causing us a problem. It is taking us away from the real issue, which is the coverage and reporting of such cases, an issue that has been thrown into particular relief in recent years by the power of electronic media and the internet.
	For generations, local newspapers were, with the greatest of respect to them, the chip paper of tomorrow. They were easily forgotten-trashed, buried. However, the internet is not just for Christmas; it is for life. I am sure that we have all had constituents who were the victims of false allegations years and years ago, but who are haunted by the spectre of a Google search linking their name for ever with that false allegation. I am sure that we have all had cases of people pleading for help-some of them have mental health problems as a result of what happened to them. Let us not forget that none of the proposed changes to the law will help those people, which is why the point made some time ago by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)-that this issue not only covers home affairs or justice, but is a media matter, for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport-is so important.
	The more I think about the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that we should be grappling with the equally difficult-indeed, perhaps somewhat more difficult-question of the power of the internet, and how to regulate it and seek in some way to expunge the names of those innocent individuals from that awful spectre of a Google search when, for example, they apply for jobs and find that their names are for ever besmirched. That is the problem that so many innocent people have to face, and it is a problem that we need to start talking about, and seeking to address and in some way solve.
	I return to where we are in this debate. Recognising the problem that I have outlined, I think that reporting restrictions should surely not be confined to rape or sexual allegations generally. There are many scandalous allegations made against individuals-they have been well discussed today, but I shall not repeat them for fear of overstepping my time allocation. However, the point has been powerfully and simply made by many colleagues in all parts of the House that to try artificially to restrict the proposal to one category of crime not only poses the kind of problems that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) identified in her powerful contribution, but risks taking us back to the naturally emotive issues that surround the crime of rape.
	I should like to digress for a moment and talk in support of the many speeches that have been made today about the need for better investigation of rape crimes. Let me tell the House that my experience of the prosecution of rape is that juries always look for that extra bit of reassurance-particularly where consent is the issue-that they can often get from powerful scientific evidence. "Why scientific evidence," one might ask, "if the issue is consent? How on earth can that be relevant?" The answer is that trials can take peculiar twists and turns. Issues that might not have seemed important to investigating officers at the outset of the investigation can suddenly loom rather large in the consideration of the jury when one goes through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb.
	I will give the House a simple example. Where the act took place can often be a powerful indicator of whether consent or the lack of it can be proved. For example, if the act took place on a floor or an area that would not be consistent with consent, scientific evidence can often help to prove a case, particularly if the defendant and the complainant disagree about where the particular act of intercourse or sexual misconduct took place. I know that that might sound like arguing with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, but the truth is this: the scene of a crime of rape should be treated as seriously as the scene of a crime or murder or any other alleged act of serious violence. Far too often, scenes of crime are not sterilised, preserved or properly protected by investigating officers, with the result that valuable sources of evidence are lost. I accept that that is a question of resources, and I know that senior police officers will have a very difficult round in the year ahead, but time and again police officers have told me that this is a problem that they face. There is no lack of will or empathy involved; there is simply a lack of resources for conducting proper investigations of rape allegations.
	The attrition rate has been mentioned. That is perhaps rather an inelegant phrase to use when we are talking about such a sensitive crime, but we must not forget about this. The rate will be increased if prosecutors make decisions to pursue cases that fail the test of a reasonable prospect of conviction. That should be a cast-iron test to be applied to every case, irrespective of the type of allegation. I do not say that in a cold-hearted way; I believe that such a test serves the public interest.
	Let us put the questions of attrition and investigations out of our minds for the moment and return to the question of reporting restrictions. I believe that there is a case for the creation of a discretionary power for judges to impose reporting restrictions in whatever cases they see fit, subject to a simple test-namely, that of the interest of justice. That is a wide test that is applied by the judiciary up and down the land every day of our working lives. At a stroke, it would cut through all the sensitivities that have been quite properly expressed today, and all the problems that come with identifying particular professions and particular types of offence. We must trust the judiciary to do the job that they are trained to do.
	In that regard, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe-I nearly called her my learned friend-was an extremely important one. She proposes discretion up to charge. I would go further and propose discretion throughout the course of the trial. That could cover a range of different allegations. It would also allow a properly informed judge, faced with an unmeritorious application from a defendant who perhaps did not deserve the protection of reporting restrictions as much as someone of good character, to make a decision based on all the information before them. That would remove the quite natural emotion that we hear in debates such as this one, and allow us to avoid the natural collision of views over the investigation of the serious crime of rape, as well as the more general issues about journalism, reporting and reputation.
	For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about their current position and to widen the ambit of the measure to include a wide range of offences. Furthermore, the word "anonymity" might be relevant in the case of an undercover police officer, who can now give evidence while being protected by statute-following the problems of two or three years ago when the European Court ruled that the current common law position was inadequate-but we should stop using the word in relation to this debate. We should be talking about reporting restrictions. If we do introduce legislation on this subject, I want that term to be used. On that note, I hope that I have in some way contributed towards this excellent and well-informed debate.

Geraint Davies: At the nub of this debate is the question of whether the police should be allowed the discretion to release the identity of people who they believe are serial rapists, with a view to getting more victims and more witnesses to come forward and provide more evidence to facilitate prosecution. That point was touched on in an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. We have heard good debating points, but we really need to get to the nub of the issue, because I fear that if the anonymity proposal for rape defendants goes through we will end up tying the hands of the police.
	We are not talking about allowing all the names of all the people ever accused of rape to go out to the media before charge. Rather, we are talking about whether in certain instances, where people are known to be serial offenders but have not been successfully prosecuted, the police should be allowed-given the statistical background we have discussed-to facilitate the process of getting more people to come forward. I believe that if the anonymity proposal is pushed through, we will simply end up with more rape-particularly by serial rapists-less reporting and fewer convictions.
	In my area of Swansea West, as elsewhere, there is serious and widespread concern about this issue. I know that some Members have said that it is not political, but I have encountered people saying, "Look, I voted Liberal Democrat, and I did not vote for hiding the identity of prospective rapists and increasing the number of rape victims. I did not vote for that." This policy emerged, of course, from a Liberal Democrat conference resolution in 2006. To be fair to the Conservatives, in 1988 the veil was pulled and hidden identity was thrown away under pressure from the police, who said that anonymity was preventing women from reporting. That remains the case, so I hope that the Conservatives will go back to their previous position. I realise that some sort of deal has been done on VAT and everything else, but let us not allow it to get in the way of the rights of women and their protection. Disclosure generates confidence-confidence to stand up and be counted against serial offenders.
	Most crime generally is serial crime. We all know that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by just a few people-and that is certainly the case with rape. Like other Members who have spoken, I have had the great pleasure of witnessing a presentation by the chief constable of Cheshire, Dave Whatton, who showed evidentially the relationship between disclosure, witnesses coming forward and subsequent convictions. The reality is that a person comes up for a rape trial, often on their own, but with disclosure, others might come forward. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, in some cases, evidence from the first victim might not be sufficient for conviction, but it might be with the collaborative evidence of others. Without that additional evidence, the case is likely to fall and more serial rape is likely to be the result.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the opportunity for the press to publish information about defendants, which could strengthen the case if more women come forward. Their cases might not get on the charge sheet, but even if it is the first time that they have come forward, it would help to give them closure, in that they would know who their attacker was and their additional evidence would hopefully contribute to a successful conviction and their attacker going to jail.

Geraint Davies: That is absolutely right. We talked earlier about the problem of putting things in boxes and isolated cases. Some women go through thinking that they have contributed to the incident or even that it is somehow their fault, but if they knew that the person had a consistent pattern of behaviour in raping women, they would no longer think like that. Sometimes a woman-or a man-does not want to stand in front of a court; a difficult case might fail completely because no one else comes forward and the evidence is insufficient. In those circumstances, the victim could end up being branded as a woman-sometimes a man-who makes false accusations. They have told the truth, but on the balance of evidence available from only one witness, the accused is found not guilty, and the woman then becomes "a liar". What signal does that send when we want to encourage more witnesses to come forward?
	I appreciate that the point was made seriously, but I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee-the point about Google raised by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was well made-that there is an equivalence between the psychological and reputational difficulties of the accused, although they certainly exist, and a lot more women being raped. There is no qualitative equivalence between them. Quantitatively, the number of malicious, false allegations is minute, whereas the number of unreported-certainly unconvicted-rapes is massive. On the balance of the argument, qualitatively and quantitatively, the case for anonymity is not made.

Robert Buckland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geraint Davies: Briefly, as I mentioned Google.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is a trade-off between the effect on an innocent person and rape being undetected and victims not being served by the system, is he?

Geraint Davies: We must maximise our impact on injustice against victims and the wrongly accused. Ultimately, however, there is a trade-off, because if we push forward with anonymity, there will be more rape, more rapists and more rape victims. A few innocent people might get accused because of the culture and environment we create, but it is obvious where I stand in that trade-off.
	The chief constable of Cheshire gave the example of a vicar who used to be a teacher. There was a media revelation about him being accused, and immediately eight more victims came forward, as a result of which he was convicted. We have heard about the 12 women who came forward about the black cab driver; suddenly, after photos were published, 81 more women came forward. In the case of the paedophile running a teenage football team, publicity led to 14 more victims coming forward. Under the anonymity proposal, that would not have happened, and we would not be protecting the victims, including children.
	There is a prisoner's dilemma whereby we rely on the brave victim coming forward and encouraging other people to have the confidence to do so. With anonymity, the risk is that that person will stand alone, and that in the time between the accusation and the court case, she will be open to harassment through texting and phone calls saying, "You haven't got a chance. You know you're going to lose." Then, when she does lose, other people will look at her and say, "I'm not ending up like Mary. She was harassed for ages, and now she is regarded as a liar." Anonymity changes fundamentally the power relationship between victim and accused. The accused will realise that, it will reduce the risk to serial rapists who use drugs or alcohol to carry out their crimes, and it will increase rapist confidence.
	Under the proposal, the balance could tip even further against the victim. The statistics already suggest that 0.5% of women are raped each year-about 140,000 women a year. Of those, about 100,000 do not report the rape. Why is that? Obviously, there is a systemic problem with the justice system. About 5% of women in the population-1.4 million-have been raped. Despite that horrendous figure, we are discussing measures to deter people from coming forward.
	The chief constable of Cheshire gave a snapshot of statistics in the year to March 2010. He reported that 155 crimes had been recorded as rape, 33 of which were prosecuted, with 23 convictions. Nobody was found to have put forward a malicious, false accusation, although 13 cases were regarded as non-criminal. His evidence suggested that, occasionally, accusations are dismissed. I do not pretend that there are not malicious, false allegations, but there are few of them. Obviously, false allegations are serious, because when people are found to have made them they are punished by, for instance, as has been mentioned, two years in jail, which is fair enough. However, we should not change legislation because of a small number of people, when a large number of people are suffering very serious consequences, against a backdrop of a massive amount of rape. We should not rush a change through before the summer recess as has been suggested.
	Women, in particular, will see the proposal in the wider context of a new Government suggesting that there should be less closed circuit television and less use of DNA, and now they are suggesting that there should be anonymity. Plus they are cutting £125 million from the police grant. When all that is put together, it does not look good to the victim, or suspected victim, of rape. To those watching this debate, I point out that 1.4 million women have been raped. Again, that is against a long-term cultural backdrop of endemic sexism in the judicial system. I see men on the Government Benches raising their eyebrows, but we have all heard about contributory negligence: "She was drunk"; "She had a short skirt on"; "He couldn't help himself"; "He was a former boyfriend"; "And what about her sexual history?"; "What about his military career?"-all irrelevant, erroneous considerations. Consent is consent.

Anna Soubry: rose-

Geraint Davies: I consent to the intervention.

Anna Soubry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those days are long past? Raising the sexual history of a complainant is specifically prohibited, apart from in extremely rare circumstances, under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Does he agree that that is a long time ago? We have moved on greatly in the past 15 to 20 years.

Geraint Davies: No, I would not agree. I heard of a recent case where such suggestions were made about clothing and all the rest of it by the barrister in putting the defendant's case. That is still the backdrop. We can all pretend that we do not live in the environment in which we do. The environmental context is pulled in when such cases are considered, and that is another reason why people do not want to come forward. They say, "Oh no, I was out on a Saturday night and I'd had a few drinks, so it's an I-was-asking-for-it type of thing."

Guy Opperman: To be fair, in the past 13 years, the hon. Gentleman's own Government made immense efforts with the judiciary to change previous judicial thinking, however misinformed it may have been, as the judiciary would tell him. The previous Government did a huge amount; does he not agree with that?

Geraint Davies: I must agree with that. A huge amount was done by the previous Government in this direction; that is completely true. My simple point is that the statistical backdrop is horrendous, the direction of travel of the proposal is regressive, and the cultural backdrop is sexist. As was said, the previous Government did a lot to move in the other direction. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the sort of arguments that I mentioned are frowned on, but what about the image of the system held by the people whom it serves? We have a situation where 100,000 people are not coming forward into that system because they have no confidence in it. At the same time, a dog whistle is being blown, as regards defendant anonymity. I genuinely think that such anonymity will protect more serial rapists and lead to more rape.
	This is a key moment for the Government, with regard to the future of justice in cases of sexual violence. I very much hope that they pull back from what I regard as a retrograde, regressive, sexist and backward position.

Guy Opperman: Like many people in this debate, I have specific experience of the problems, having served as a prosecution barrister on behalf of the Attorney-General for many years and, more specifically, having run a free representation unit that provided criminal injuries compensation assistance, and having worked with Victim Support. In fact, the previous Government gave me an award for the work that we did for Victim Support; I accept that that will not happen ever again, but I pray in aid the fact that that award was for the work that we were trying to do on behalf of those who were so grievously affected by the issue that we are discussing.
	I would like to think that we have grasped an important, serious issue, but we have done it improperly. The coalition agreement says:
	"We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants",
	when ideally it should say, "We will consult on the issue." If it had said that, many things would have been a lot easier, as they also would have been if it had followed the Select Committee on Home Affairs 2003 report in respect of sexual offences. We all understand that mistakes may have been made in the drafting of the coalition agreement, and I see no difficulty in these matters being reconsidered and handled in a better way upon reasoned conclusion over the coming months and years.
	All of us must accept that the conviction rate is too low, and all of us must also accept-as I attempted to explain in my intervention on the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies)-that much was done by the police and the previous Government, following on from work done down through the years, to provide greater assistance on this issue, and it continues to be done.
	I comprehensively reject the idea that the judiciary is fundamentally biased against individual persons. That is not the experience of those of us who have spent a lot of time in the courts. Whatever may have happened in the past, my experience is that it does not happen in the present day and age.
	I support the broad principle that we should consult on, and review, this issue. There is rightly considerable concern that people who are acquitted of certain offences should not have their lives ruined-and in some cases their lives are comprehensively ruined. It is accepted that in some types of cases, particularly serial rapist and sex offender cases, the widespread publication of certain details makes a difference to the conviction. That is one of the inherent flaws in the argument for going down the proposed route, but it is patently possible-this is done in a variety of other scenarios in judicial contexts-for these situations to be dealt with in a way that allows judicial flexibility. Also, the police can in certain limited instances apply to publicise such details precisely because they wish to go down what we might call the Warboys route as they think there are other related sexual offences and they want them to come to light. That similar fact evidence is already inherent in the system and followable in the system.
	However, I have represented someone who was wrongly convicted of a criminal offence. I have absolutely no doubt of his innocence, but that gentleman was convicted and it took me one year and about two weeks to get the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision. That young man was desperately affected, and I do not think he will ever be the same again. It was no comfort thereafter that the individuals involved were subsequently prosecuted. That is but one example of many. Plenty of other people, such as Peter Bacon and Matthew Kelly, have been in similar situations where these matters coming to light makes life very difficult.
	We should look back at the best evidence. For me, that comes at present from the Home Affairs Committee 2003 report. It is worth while contemplating the fact that some sensible and very serious luminaries were serving on the Committee at the time: Janet Dean, Chris Mullin, Bridget Prentice, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), Gwyn Prosser, the hon. Members for Bradford West (Mr Singh) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), Ann Widdecombe, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), the current Prime Minister. Those are the names listed on the Home Affairs Committee 2003 report, and their proposals were clear. As was explained by the current Select Committee Chairman, there were good reasons why on balance they came down in favour of anonymity not for rape specifically, but for sexual offences. As is well known, they had the support of the Metropolitan police, which is relevant because the police have been often mentioned today. They had that support because the Metropolitan police made the point in relation to sexual offences, particularly sexual offences involving children, that the publicity was damaging for everyone involved, not just the defendant.
	So I submit that the favouring of the move is based on the current evidence that is best before us, and that evidence comes from the Home Affairs Committee. I endorse, however, the proposals of the Chairman of that Committee and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that this is patently something that should proceed by way of proper consultation, ideally by both that Committee and the Select Committee on Justice working together and addressing all the evidence as they progress. I am certain that if they did that, a productive and useful process would be engaged in and the matter would move forward.
	I wish briefly to discuss the issue of teachers and doctors, because I endorse entirely the proposals in respect of them, having also represented teachers who have been affected and been subject to allegations. This is a question that this House has to grasp, because although schools are not being paralysed, they are being considerably affected by the way in which teachers are struggling to cope with these issues. I finish by saying that I support the proposal in broad terms, but it is capable of great improvement.

Nia Griffith: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, but I am concerned and saddened that the coalition Government have proposed to give anonymity to rape defendants. I do not wish to repeat many of the excellent points made by my hon. Friends, and by the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who have brought their professional expertise to bear on this subject, but this is a serious issue.
	Being falsely accused of any serious crime can have devastating effects on a person's life. However, experts in the field confirm that false accusations of rape are very rare. The Association of Chief Police Officers rape lead, Chief Constable Whatton, has said:
	"The public perception is that there are lots of false allegations; my professional view is that there aren't".
	Likewise, Baroness Stern's "review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales" states that
	"those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few. A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer told us, 'They are extremely rare. I have been prosecuting for 20 years, and have prosecuted for a false allegation once.' The judges we talked to said these cases occur very infrequently. An experienced police officer had come across two such cases in 15 years."
	So giving anonymity only to rape defendants sends out a very clear message to rape victims that they alone are not to be believed. It tells them that they alone are not to be taken seriously. It suggests to them that there is no point in coming forward because nobody will believe them and, worse than that, as they will not be believed there is no chance that the rapist will be convicted and so there is no point in reporting rape. This would be a very backward step. Rape has a devastating effect on the victim, with the after-effects lasting for years. It is a particularly difficult crime to report and it can occur in a wide range of circumstances; it is far more widespread than is commonly known, with some 2,000 women raped every week and some 10,000 women sexually abused.
	Victims of rape naturally find it very difficult to come forward, because they are often very embarrassed about what has happened, and manipulative rapists can often make the victim somehow feel partially responsible for the assault that has taken place. Victims are very worried about having to describe to complete strangers what has happened. They are also very worried about what they know will be a very long and complicated process and about being cross-examined about intimate details. Over the years, those difficulties have been recognised and efforts have been made to improve facilities and to increase the availability of specialised professionals, but it is still a big step for a victim to come forward to report rape.
	One major deterrent to rape victims coming forward is the worry that they will not be believed. Giving rape defendants, and only rape defendants, anonymity sends a very clear message to rape victims, more than 90% of whom are women, that they are unlikely to be believed. It reinforces many of the insidious myths about rape-for example, that somehow the victim was asking for it or was somehow responsible for it happening.
	Victims are very worried about the attitudes they will encounter if they report rape. Unfortunately, in a report produced in 2007, Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate has shown that a key problem in the investigation of rape cases is "a culture of scepticism" among many police officers and prosecutors. Giving anonymity only to rape defendants will serve merely to reinforce that culture of scepticism, and although the culture might be slowly changing the perception of many women is that it still exists. The fact that women perceive that to be the culture is making them reluctant to come forward and giving anonymity to rape defendants will only reinforce their concerns.
	The proposal is like giving some sort of charter to serial rapists. Whereas now when a defendant is named, other victims are given the courage to come forward and provide additional evidence that can help to secure a conviction-many such cases have been cited this afternoon-what is proposed will do the opposite. It will hamper police investigations and make it much easier for serial offenders to avoid detection and to reoffend again and again. We all know that it is well documented how such people try to get themselves into a position of trust or a position in which they know they will have the opportunity to repeat their crime again and again.
	Do the Government recognise that giving rape defendants greater protection could reduce conviction rates, particularly for serial rapists? Do they realise what a negative message they are sending to victims of rape-that they, and they alone, are not to be believed?
	Enormous efforts have been made to improve the treatment of rape survivors in the criminal justice system, but no matter what is done reporting rape will always be traumatic. I implore the Minister not to proceed to accord anonymity to rape defendants because it would be an immense backward step and would undo a lot of the good work that has been done in this area.

Michael Ellis: Several Members have asked the rhetorical question, "Why treat rape differently?" The reality is-I say this having had 16 years of experience at the criminal Bar in England and Wales-that it would not be treated differently by the law in several respects. The identity of defendants is withheld every day in hundreds of cases in our criminal justice system in cases in youth courts, or those with persons under the age of 16 who are involved in proceedings. That has been so since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so there are plenty of such examples every day. I accept that that relates to young people, but the principle exists.
	That principle was reinforced by the previous Labour Government and applied to adults in relation to certain terrorist offences. Thanks to Labour legislation, the anonymity of defendants was applied in those cases, which is why one reads in the media about the cases of N or A. When Labour Members refer to the uniqueness of this proposition, I would submit that they are wrong for those reasons.
	Rape is also different from other offences. Often it is one person's word against that of another, particularly as regards allegations when consent is an issue. Of course, in cases when consent is not an issue, the same principle does not apply. A situation in which the evidence is the word of one person against that of another-I do not exclude males here, because males can be victims of rape, as we have discussed-can never be the case in allegations of sexual offences against children. Consent will never be the issue there. When consent is an issue among adults in a rape case, there is often no supporting evidence for a jury to get a grip of that can corroborate a complainant's account. That makes rape different from many other offences that are prosecuted in our courts and it might partly account for the exceptionally low conviction rate for rape-assuming that one accepts there is an unusually low conviction rate, because that is not universally accepted within the profession.
	In every case, jurors have to be sure of a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt before they convict. When it is one person's word against another's, my experience, and no doubt that of others who have practised in the criminal courts, is that juries may be unconvinced that they can be sure enough to convict someone of such a serious offence. In almost every other case nowadays, before a court prosecution is launched, the Crown Prosecution Service will require corroborative inculpatory evidence against the defendant, such as forensic, CCTV or eye-witness evidence. The prosecution would be very unlikely to proceed in cases of murder, grievous bodily harm or similar offences without some evidence other than one person saying, "This is what happened."
	No doubt, hon. Members will know that in every case the CPS has to satisfy itself regarding two criteria-first, that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and secondly, that it is in the public interest to proceed. To satisfy the first test, supporting evidence would invariably be needed. It has been my experience, and that of others from the Bar who have spoken in the debate, that that test seems not to have been applied by prosecutors in rape cases. It seems that prosecutors are much more robust about telling the police that they are disinclined to prosecute grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm cases to court because there is not enough evidence, whereas that decision seems to be left more to jurors in rape cases. I urge that prosecutors should think carefully about applying a proper test to rape, because nothing in law separates rape cases from the requirement that there should be a realistic prospect of conviction. Rape has those unique characteristics, and so it stands apart from most other offences in the criminal lexicon.
	A second reason that I offer for the low conviction rate is the fact that the law makes no differentiation between a stranger rape, as they are sometimes called, and another type of rape in which the accused is known to the victim. I am not calling for the law to make that differentiation, but jurors invariably do make a distinction. Many members of the Bar have found that jurors are reluctant to convict of rape when there have been historical sexual relations of a consensual sort many times, because they know that the sentence will be particularly severe.
	Labour Members often ask what makes rape different, but their Government made it different legally. One more example of that is that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 recognised sexual offences as different, and section 41 placed restrictions on the cross-examination of rape complainants, creating a presumption against asking questions about previous sexual history. I do not argue that that is inappropriate, but it does restrict barristers from asking questions in court in a way that simply does not apply to other types of offence.

Glenda Jackson: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the previous Government changed the law in that way? Surely it was because of the kind of severe cross-examination of rape victims that had taken place previously in which victims were reduced to tears in the witness box, which had clear implications. One point that we have been arguing all afternoon is that that reduced the likelihood of a woman who had experienced rape from coming forward and making such allegations.

Michael Ellis: Nothing I say is designed to make it more difficult for women to make a complaint of rape. I accept and understand from my professional knowledge that it is an extremely difficult thing for women and men to do. However, my example showed how that offence is treated differently by the law. When Opposition Members ask why I say that such cases are different from all others, I fear that their argument is weakened by the provisions in their 1999 Act.
	We are not talking about false allegations of rape as such, but it is right to bear it in mind that we have a system that we must cherish: a person is innocent until proven guilty. I accept that there must be no barrier to people making a complaint, because it is already extremely difficult for them to do so; but Her Majesty's Government are not trying to do that in this proposal. Rape is uniquely stigmatising, so much so that if one goes to prison, as I have done-obviously to see clients-one can see what happens there. Prisoners charged with rape-never mind convicted-are treated differently from other prisoners. The sad reality is that a person charged or convicted of murder or a serious offence of violence can actually be respected in the prisoner context, but those accused of rape have to be segregated. There is a unique stigma.
	Rape is uniquely stigmatising and it is already treated differently by the law. I give an example, from my legal knowledge. A 17-year-old military recruit and a younger girl, aged 16, made contact via the internet. He travelled to meet her and they had sexual relations. He drove her home, by which time her father was out looking for her; indeed, she saw him in the car. At her doorstep, the mother asked, "What has he made you do?" The girl had some psychological problems and it was clear from computer conversations with friends that she was very frightened, but it was also apparent that the case was prosecuted wholly partially, with officers repeatedly reassuring her at interview that she had done the right thing. Of course, they wanted to do the right thing for her, but one has to ask whether it is doing the right thing by a complainant to reassure her repeatedly and not put her, or him, to the test on the quality of their evidence. It will be explored in court proceedings, which puts the complainant under even more pressure.
	In the case I am describing, the young man was remanded, released on bail and remanded again. The case came before a Crown Court judge and when counsel-not me-asked the first question, "He didn't rape you, did he?", the answer was "No", and the case was dismissed.
	I regret to inform Members that such cases happen on a regular basis.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman suggests that such cases happen on a regular basis, but there is no evidence-it is anecdotal. One of the things Baroness Stern was asking for was better evidence of false allegation in all crimes, including rape. We need to get the data and evidence right, because such phrases do not help the debate at all.

Michael Ellis: In the absence of statistics, one can only go by one's anecdotal experience, and it is reasonable for barristers who have worked in the Crown Court daily for many years to draw on that experience. I differ from what the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said about the number of cases prosecuted as perversions of the course of justice or malicious reporting of rape. That number will be very much lower than the average. That is because it is very difficult to prove a negative, and one would normally have to ascertain that the complaint was made in wholly and probably dishonest circumstances-for example, it might later transpire that the complainant and the victim were in two different locations. But it is illogical for the hon. Lady to draw the conclusion that because there are X prosecutions for perverting the course of justice, there are not that many false accusations. The two are totally different.

Nia Griffith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I was quoting the professionals who have been involved for many, many years in such cases? I was not quoting the number of actual cases that might have been brought. I was quoting what the professionals had said, and they said that the number of false accusations being made anywhere in the process was extremely low.

Michael Ellis: Nothing that I have said is designed to protect the guilty. I accept what the hon. Lady says. As far as I am concerned-I emphasise this-anyone convicted of this sort of crime deserves the full wrath of the law and society. I am motivated here-I am sure that all Members would sympathise with this-by the protection of the innocent, and the ancient principle that all in this country are innocent unless or until they are proven guilty is a principle that we should never derogate.

Chi Onwurah: I will not speak for long, as many of the arguments that I wanted to make against the coalition's proposals have already been made very eloquently and forcefully by fellow Members on the Opposition Benches-and also, on occasion, by those on the other side of the House. With some exceptions, the level of debate on this very sensitive subject has been such as to make me feel very privileged to take part in it, although I still regret absolutely the necessity for me to do so.
	I want to share with the House the experience of one of my constituents, to illustrate the distress that the coalition's proposals are already causing to many people in my constituency. I should say that the family concerned asked me specifically to share this information when they heard of the coalition's proposals.
	I will be keeping the identity of my constituent private. When we hon. Members make reference to victims of other crimes, such as murder or stabbings, we often name them. We do so because we think that brings honour on them. But not in the case of rape. The stigma of rape still contaminates the victim, even in the 21st century. I know that we all believe that that is wrong, and that many Members on both sides of the House, and indeed people across the country, have worked for years to eliminate that stigma, and huge progress has been made. But the coalition's plans risk endangering much of that progress. That is because giving rape defendants anonymity is a unique fashion of saying to the public, to the jury and to the victim him or herself, that victims are not to be trusted.
	My constituent was raped many years ago now, but her experience still impacts on her life and that of her family. Her attacker drove into her, causing her a minor injury. He then apologised profusely and offered to give her a lift home. En route he parked and forced her into a disused building, where he raped her after repeatedly punching her in the face. She was held hostage for many hours. She feared for her life, and indeed her life was in the gift of her attacker. Fortunately, she managed to escape, and fortunately also the police were able to trace the attacker. But even after arrest, my constituent's attacker viewed his crime with little seriousness. He intended to plead not guilty. He said the victim wanted it all along. After all, she had got into the car with him; she must be in the habit of having such encounters with strangers on the street. And it was only her word against his. One can only imagine how distressing that was not only for the victim, but for her family.
	I want to emphasise that the reporting of rape is always a distressing experience for the victim and those who are around him or her. By introducing these proposals, the coalition is now making my constituent and her family relive that experience. In her case, only when another of her attacker's victims came forward, owing to the publicity and the naming of the attacker, did the case become strong enough that the defendant decided to plead guilty, thereby saving her from the trauma of having to give evidence. That ended the prospect of my constituent having to relive her pain in a court case, but she is still reliving her pain now when she thinks that, if the coalition's proposals had been in place, her attacker may never have been convicted.
	The Government's main argument, as we can understand it, for giving rape defendants anonymity seems to rest on the possibility of false allegations. It is true that false allegations of any serious crime can ruin lives. It is terribly distressing to be falsely accused of any crime, and we must do all that we can in the justice system to minimise the likelihood of that happening. However, as I believe the Minister acknowledged, there is no greater likelihood of false allegations being made in cases of rape than in cases of other crimes, whereas we all know-we have the statistics to show it-that the under-reporting of rape is far greater than that of other crimes of a similarly serious nature. So why does it make sense to introduce these proposals to give anonymity to defendants when we need to do all that we can to encourage rape victims to come forward?
	Hon. Members have discussed the principle that anonymity is awarded in relation to vulnerability, such as that of children. Children, the victims of organised crime and rape victims are given anonymity, but rape defendants do not fit into that mould of vulnerability. Indeed, the Minister said that one reason for giving anonymity was to create-I think that this was his phrase-a balance of arms. I hope that he did not mean to imply that the objective of our criminal justice system is somehow to clear the ground, so that the defendant and the claimant can fight it out like some sort of mediaeval tournament. That would be a regressive step.
	I hope that the coalition will understand that these proposals will take our criminal justice backwards and that, if we want to live in a society, as I am sure that we all do, where respect for law and belief in justice are given to all, male or female, defendants and accused, awarding anonymity to defendants will be a most regressive step.

Louise Bagshawe: I am glad to have the chance to contribute however briefly to the debate. I must start by apologising to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the whole House for the fact that I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches since I have an urgent appointment in my constituency with the fine young men and women who serve in the Corby air cadets. I hope that Ministers will forgive me. I will therefore be very brief, because everything that needs to be said has already been said. We have seen-have we not?-politics at its best in the debate, which has been non-partisan, sober, well judged and rational.
	I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman). I am also most encouraged by what the Minister said today, because the coalition Government are proceeding in the proper way. It is clear that they intend to consult and to listen. I am not persuaded that a long, formal consultation is necessary as long as the informal consultation is wide and genuine.
	I urge Ministers to take account of the views of no less a personage than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who referred in a reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to the 2003 report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We heard today from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) exactly what the Committee's proposals were. If the House will forgive a little repetition, they were that we should consider extending anonymity to those accused of all kinds of sexual crimes, including sexual crimes against children.
	Surely the main concern-it has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House-is the exceptional nature of rape that is implied in the current proposals. However, I suggest that the Minister look at the wording of the phrase in the coalition document. It says that we will introduce anonymity for rape defendants, not that we will bring forward anonymity only for rape defendants. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, in her very fine speech, offered a good compromise that Ministers might like to consider. She suggested that there is a case for looking at the trauma of people who are wrongly accused of crimes of all stripes, and for considering widening anonymity to those accused of sexual crimes or crimes of extreme violence. They might also consider giving discretion to judges and the police. Surely that is one way forward.
	As I said, I am encouraged that the Government wish to consult. Clearly, as we have seen from the tenor of the debate, this is not and cannot be a party political issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor suggested that there could be a free vote, and I associate myself with the plea that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made for that. However, if that is not the case, we might look at expanding the application of anonymity. That would give a way forward that could command support and respect on both sides of the House. I am very encouraged by the way in which the Government are seeking to consult properly and to listen to Members on all sides of this very important issue.

Nicola Blackwood: May I begin by paying tribute to the excellent maiden speakers? In that, I single out the astute comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who mentioned all his local newspapers. It made me wish that I had mentioned during my maiden speech what fantastic publications we have in the  Oxford  Mail, the  Oxford Times, the  Abingdon Herald, and the  Oxford Journal.
	From the outset, I must declare that I have great sympathy with some of the objections that I heard today. Just last week, there was an attempt to abduct a young girl in my constituency from outside a primary school just five minutes from my home in Oxford. I would not want to support any action that would make it harder to find that man and bring him to justice, or action that would make it harder to prevent him from actually succeeding on a future occasion.
	I have spent some time investigating sexual violence in conflict for the Conservatives' human rights commission and as a volunteer for the local domestic abuse group. I have met, and heard the testimony of, victims of some of the worst crimes imaginable. Those testimonies are seared on my memory, and it is difficult for me to remain completely objective on this issue. As a result, the suggestion of granting anonymity to rape defendants made me very nervous. I am worried that the proposal will send the wrong message to rape victims at a time when we have managed to turn around the culture of disbelief and the poor treatment of rape victims by police and the courts. Credit must go to the previous Labour Government and some of my hon. Friends for the impressive work they did in the past decade to achieve that.
	I am also concerned that anonymity will prevent women who find out that their rapist is charged with another offence from coming forward. At the same time, we must accept that in this country, innocent until proven guilty is the fundamental tenet of our law, and we must defend it fiercely. The imperative to protect ourselves, our families and our communities is one of the strongest that we experience, but we must ensure that in trying to do that, we do not give away the very life we want to protect. The rule of law shields us in our innocence and punishes us only in guilt.
	I must disagree with some of the comments made today. On the moral spectrum of our culture, sexual offences-especially rape and paedophilia-rank higher in public disgust than many other offences. It is for that reason that if we heard that a teacher at our child's school or a local GP had been accused of rape, we would find it very difficult not to take action to protect our children on the basis of that suspicion, but if we found out that one of the governors had been accused of theft, we would wait to test the veracity of the allegation before taking action.

Maria Eagle: The Government's proposal is not to give anonymity to those accused of paedophilia. Rumours abound in schools when things go wrong, and if someone were protected by anonymity and another child were to be hurt by that perpetrator, what kind of signal would that send to society?

Nicola Blackwood: I am merely trying to make the point that our culture ascribes greater disapprobation to sexual offences than it does to other offences-as some in this Chamber have claimed.
	I have a constituent who was wrongly recorded as being a sex offender for 15 years before he discovered the error, and the distress that he has experienced has been extreme. Ironically, the very fact that conviction rates for rape are so very low and reoffending rates so famously high perpetuates this culture. When so many defendants are acquitted, there is a sense that it is not because they are innocent but because the system is so poor that it is letting off the guilty. There is a sense that even if they got off that time, the likelihood is that they will do it again and probably do something worse. That means that acquittal in sexual offence trials accords the defendant legal innocence, but does not necessarily accord them innocence in the court of public opinion-they may have lost that forever.

Meg Munn: I apologise to the hon. Lady for not being in my place at the very start of her speech. Unfortunately, the situation she has just described reflects the fact that it is difficult to achieve a conviction in sexual offence cases. Some of those who have committed offences will be found not guilty because the case has not been proven.

Nicola Blackwood: I accept that, which is why we are in such a difficult position and why this debate is important.
	In an age of tabloid journalism, the internet and social networking, the potential damage that such an allegation can cause has increased exponentially and it has become dramatically more difficult to contain. Let us not pretend that we always respond moderately to such allegations. Recently, a paediatrician was targeted because it was thought that she was a paedophile. I am unsure whether the granting of anonymity would be able to contain gossip-mongering and I would like to see that taken into consideration in the inquiry and the expert evidence over the summer. It is worth considering whether there is a way to provide some workable form of anonymity to those accused of all sexual offences in limited circumstances and for limited periods of time. As I say that, I am very conscious that we have heard some very learned contributions from many lawyers today. I am not a lawyer and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I try to articulate some of the areas that concern me.
	Few of us on either side of this House would be comfortable with the suggestion that automatic anonymity should be granted for any point beyond charge. If proposals were to be made, I would be keen to see a framework that required judicial oversight after charge and a set of criteria that limited eligibility to exceptional circumstances, for example where the police do not consider the defendant a risk to others or if his ability to continue working or living in his community would be catastrophically affected. As has been mentioned, in 2003 the Home Affairs Committee recommended anonymity between allegation and charge, but I would point out that that was for all sexual offences, not just rape. It seems reasonable to offer anonymity for the first period, but I am not necessarily convinced about any period beyond that.
	I am also concerned about the impact anonymity might have through additional bureaucracy, if individuals will have to fill in extra forms and go to court for a judgment, about a time lapse in charging, and about whether that will have an effect on fairness and conviction rates. I would welcome more specialised evidence, and I would feel reassured if the inquiry to which the Minister referred were to include significant, if not formal, consultation with those who work on the front line of support services for sexual offences victims. A great deal of concern has been expressed by some in my constituency, and it would be appreciated if they could be consulted.
	I do not want to continue much longer, because there has been much debate already and most of the points have already been made. However, before being satisfied that defendant anonymity will be workable, I would want to know that other options for bringing multiple victims forward, such as publicising the modus operandi, would be just as effective as publicising identity. I would want to know that this anonymity would not prevent police from using artistic impressions or closed circuit television shots to hunt suspected criminals where appropriate. I would also want to know that in the labyrinth that is the prosecution of sexual offences, it is possible to produce workable legislation, the bureaucratic burden of which does not outweigh its value.
	Most of all, however, I just want to be convinced of one thing: that introducing anonymity for these defendants will not make it harder to convict those who are guilty. I will not close my mind to the possibility that anonymity for sexual offence defendants might be a useful tool in our justice system, but it is wrong that those wrongly accused of rape should have their lives permanently destroyed. However, let us ensure that, in offering anonymity, we are not creating another wrong and setting back sexual offence legislation. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the road this far has been a long and hard one.

Maria Eagle: We have had an extremely good debate across the Chamber on this thorny issue. I welcome the debate, and thank the Leader of the House for listening to the entreaties for one, and the Government for finding the time to provide it. It might have something to do with the lack of legislation at present, but none the less we are grateful to the Government for finding the time to have it.
	I congratulate all those who have spoken on both sides of the House, because the debate has been of an exceptionally high quality. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is no longer in his place, but who earlier made his maiden speech. Although I did not agree with absolutely everything he said, Labour Members were grateful for his kind remarks about his predecessor, Paul Clark, who is a friend of mine. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was a bit of a rebel, because he said he believed in anonymity for all sexual offences until conviction, rather than just until charge, which the Minister argued for.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), who is in his place, on his maiden speech. He conjured up a picture of his constituency that I think we all enjoyed. However, he conjured up more of a picture of his family, which we all enjoyed possibly even more. I would have liked to have met his grandmother-I wonder what she would have thought about him sitting on the Tory Benches.  [Interruption.] He does not have to answer that. She would no doubt have been proud in one way. The hon. Gentleman admitted to seeing Simply Red with his mother and girlfriend, which was a risky thing to do, but none the less I am sure he will prove an assiduous Member of the House. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor, Tony Wright, to whom we on both sides of the House have reason to be grateful-I have more reason than most because I inherited his office. From my point of view, therefore, it is particularly good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place-if he understands my point!
	I want also to congratulate Members from both sides of the House. Perhaps more so than in most debates, we have heard contributions informed by the professional experience of those Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was a criminal barrister before he came to this place, and he spoke from his experience in that respect. He also set out-in some detail and quite illuminatingly-the source of the policy that the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are having to front up, which is a policy that probably did not appear in the coalition programme for government at their suggestion. He set out in detail the policy that the Liberal Democrats adopted, which appeared to be a minor part of an extensive debate at their conference. Indeed, the suggestion appears to have been made that there should be anonymity to conviction, and in a much wider range of offences too.
	The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) also has experience as a criminal barrister, as do the hon. Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). One of the things that struck me about many-although not all-of the contributions that we heard was a deep scepticism about the possible consequences of the policy, if it is proceeded with in the way that it is set out at present, for ensuring that rape victims come forward to report rape and can be supported all the way through to trial, and that justice is served and those guilty of rape are found guilty of it and dealt with appropriately by society.
	All those speakers had helpful points to make about their experience and suggestions for how the policy-wherever it came from and whatever its provenance-might be improved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxtowe and others for the tributes that they paid to the strides taken by the previous Government. The hon. Lady said that she had a private Member's Bill, and we look forward to seeing her take it forward. I am not quite sure what number she came in at, but- [ Interruption. ] I gather that she will get a chance for a Second Reading, in which some of us will no doubt take part.
	Like many Members, the hon. Lady also questioned why the coalition had decided that rape was the only offence where the defendant ought to be protected in the way proposed, and I do not think that we have yet heard a satisfactory answer to that. Many Members have suggested that even if one accepts the unique difficulty of dealing with the offence of rape, there are other sexual offences that have similar difficulties. With respect, I do not think that the explanation that the hon. Member for Northampton North gave convinced all of us on this side of the House. He referred to the youth courts, but defendants in the youth courts are granted anonymity because of their youth across the entire range of offences. Therefore, the argument about singling out defendants in rape cases as uniquely needing such protection is not dealt with by his point.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who I had not realised was a forensic medical examiner. She brought to her speech the clarity and succinctness of her scientific background, speaking briefly but making some extremely salient points. She said that, from her experience of dealing with victims at that sensitive time shortly after they have been attacked and reported the incident, she knows that the majority of such crimes are not reported and that fewer than 5% of the women she saw ended up securing a conviction.
	Perhaps most importantly, the hon. Lady made it clear that it was her impression, from her professional experience, that many women have the courage to come forward and report an incident-thereby setting out on that long and difficult road-only because they think that they are helping other women. If any policy, well intentioned or otherwise, prevents women at that sensitive time from thinking that they will help other women by reporting, we will be doing them a disservice by proceeding with it. What will happen is less reporting; consequently, there will be more scepticism and more rapists will get away with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), among others, made the important point that serial rapists would get away with it, which would equate to there being more victims. The speech of the hon. Member for Totnes was brief, but it was extremely salient.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made an extremely good speech, as we have come to expect from her. She took up this issue at an early stage and pressed the Government on it, and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) knows well, she does not let go once she gets started. Her speech was not only powerful but extremely salient. She said that the Government had today spurned the opportunity to retreat a little further, having thought about the matter in more detail. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) would do us all a favour-including, I dare say, his colleague, the hon. Member for Reigate-if he were to tell us at the end of the debate that the Government were willing to listen a little more than they have so far, and willing to go away and do a number of things, which I shall come to in a moment.
	Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) brought to her speech her experience as a social worker of dealing with some of these issues. Her speech was also extremely powerful. It helps the House, when we are considering these matters, to have such a professional perspective from Members. She said that this was an ill-thought-out policy, and she urged the Government to think again, as many people have done. She brought great insight to her remarks, based on her professional experience, and said that we should never underestimate the difficulties involved in prosecuting rape.
	Importantly, my hon. Friend said that we had to proceed from a position of believing people. We do not necessarily need to say a complainant, "I'm going to believe you 100%, regardless of the evidence arising out of the investigation", but when a woman, man or child comes forward to report a rape, we must not start by giving them the impression that we probably do not believe that it happened. There was far too much of that from the statutory services in the past, but we have moved away from that now. The barristers on the Government Benches who have spoken today made it clear that things have improved, and I agree with them. We must not do anything that takes us back to those bad old days.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West urged the Government to think again, describing the anonymity proposal as a dog whistle, and saying that it would protect serial rapists, resulting in more people getting away with rape and fewer victims coming forward. It ill behoves the Government to ignore those warnings; they really should bear those concerns in mind.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) pointed out the inconsistencies and complications of the policy, as well as some of the unintended consequences that might follow if it is introduced very quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) tackled the issue of false allegations, and set out the argument why, in her opinion, the measure would represent a retrograde and undesirable step. She made her arguments very strongly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) powerfully described the experience of one of her constituents, illustrating how publicity can be important in certain instances. Other hon. Members have also set out the experiences of those who have been wrongly accused, which were different from that described by my hon. Friend. Of course, one case alone cannot change the law, and we must look across the board at the impact of all these factors on this particularly sensitive issue.
	The Government should be asking themselves a number of questions when they go away to consider these matters further, as I-and Members across the House-urge them to do. What will be the impact of anonymity at whatever level-for charge, for conviction, for rape or for a wider range of offences-on the ability of victims to report attacks and on the likelihood of them being believed? It is important for Ministers to consider that question. Also, what impact will it have on the ability of the police to investigate and catch rapists? What impact will the proposed reporting restrictions have on our free press and the concept of open justice? We must remember that the wider we extend such a provision, the greater the impact on the very basis of our justice system, according to which allegations are made, cases are heard and dealt with in public, so that justice can be seen to be done as well as be done. These are important concepts and the wider we range across breaching that system, the more fundamental the risk to it.
	Will these proposals really make it easier to catch and convict rapists? Why, oh why, single out rape as a crime for different treatment? We should look at the impact-not just the intentional impact, which one accepts is obviously not to make things worse-of doing so. What will be the practical impact on the victims who might otherwise have come forward? Let us have the research done on the level of malicious false reporting. Baroness Stern has called for it, and a number of Members have said that the evidence base is not extensive enough for us to be clear. That is true, so let us have that report.
	Finally, how does anonymity for defendants improve the conviction rate for rape? At the end of the day, it is the conviction rate that we all want to see improved. That is what will send out the signal from society that this crime will not be tolerated and that we fully intend to crack down on it.
	Let me ask the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon three things before he replies. Can this new research on attrition and the level of false reporting that Baroness Stern has called for be carried out before the policy is finalised, implemented and legislated for? Will he give us an assurance that the research will not simply be a review from a senior civil servant-all of whom in the Ministry of Justice I greatly respect, by the way? We do not want just a survey of the existing evidence base, which would be helpful but would not take us forward. We could all go to one place to read it, but it would not add to our knowledge. Can we have real research, as Baroness Stern has suggested, into the real level of malicious false reporting? That is the important issue here.
	Secondly, can we have a proper and full public consultation? The call for it from across the Chamber has been widespread, including from some Members who have supported the proposals and others who have expressed grave doubts about them. I was concerned when the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate promised "a consultation", but only a short, limited and restricted one. For a subject as sensitive and important as this one, such a low and restrictive level of consultation is insufficient, especially when the change could have a big impact on our capacity to deal with this crime. There is no argument against having a proper and full public consultation, particularly if it is true that the Government do not intend early legislation on this issue. I want the Minister who is about to reply to commit himself and his Government to giving us the consultation we want.
	Finally, I have been struck by the high level of dissent expressed by those on the Government Benches behind the Minister. It has been gently and politely put and has rightly been couched in professional terms, but it is dissent none the less. A great deal of concern has been expressed by Government Members, while for Labour Members the concern is universal. The policy that the Minister who opened the debate seemed determined to pursue is wrong. It is not thought through; it is not based on evidence; and it will have deleterious, and possibly devastating, effects on women victims of rape and on those who seek to improve the outcomes that society wants in dealing with this horrendous crime.
	Will the Minister who just about to reply do this for us? Will he withdraw the proposals, admit that they were not properly thought through, go away, think again, get the evidence in order, and then come back to the House with fully thought-through proposals that are evidence-based and convincing, having consulted widely? Were he to do that, he would get a cheer at the end of his speech. Let us see what he will get.

Jonathan Djanogly: I agree with the shadow Minister that we have had a good, informed debate, with tremendous contributions from many informed people. It was excellent to hear so many good contributions from new Members on both sides of the House. Generally, the debate has been non-partisan, which, given the subject matter, is healthy.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on an excellent and thoughtful maiden speech, which let us in on the lasting effect of his having had a single-sex education. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) made an eloquent maiden speech, and his proposals to beat the fear of crime through a community-led approach were well put. We will forgive him the Simply Red concert last weekend.
	The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a strong opening speech, but it was sometimes based on proposals that are simply not the Government's position. She said that we were not saying what the Government's position is. In response to her, and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) who made the same point, I say that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), made our position clear in his opening remarks. Let me repeat what he said: we intend to strengthen and formalise the current arrangements for anonymity up to the point of charge in rape cases. We will publish an independent report of existing research on rape before the summer recess, and following the request of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, we will consider whether new research is required to supplement it. Obviously, we will make a further announcement in the autumn.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) questioned the independence of the report commissioned. I assure him that the report will be peer-reviewed by two independent, external experts, that their comments will be addressed by the report authors, and that the process will be rigorous.
	To be fair, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood noted, we set aside a whole day in Government time for this debate. I trust that that leaves the House under no illusions from the outset about the importance with which we regard this issue, our desire to give direction on what is required, and how we will move the issue forward. Hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), made many helpful general points on dealing with rape, which were slightly off the specific topic of the debate but none the less helpful.

Caroline Flint: I appreciate the time and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to look at the issue of anonymity with regard to rape only? Clearly, most Members, in all parts of the House, did not want such exclusivity.

Jonathan Djanogly: It will be in regard to rape, pre-charge-that is correct.

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I will not, because I have little time and I have a lot to do.
	I share my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's view that our proposal has been somewhat misrepresented. Our position is not anti-women in any way, shape or form. It does not imply any view of the prevalence or otherwise of false allegations. There is no evidence that our position will reduce the likelihood of women reporting rape, as has been suggested. There is considerable evidence that rape is under-reported and that most attrition happens in the pre-charge stages where victims or the police decide not to proceed. The difficulties involved for victims were well explained by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). They advised that we must be careful not to create barriers preventing victims from coming forward. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) drew attention to the dangers that would result if we got that wrong.
	Many Members explained why rape is often not reported to the police. As the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out, victims may think that the police will not see what happened as rape, they may have a general distrust of the police and criminal justice agencies, or there may be language or communication difficulties. Sometimes there is a fear of disbelief, blame, judgment or further attack, or a fear that friends or family will come to know about the incident. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) noted that rape is not a gender issue. The issue normally comes down to the lack of consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) elaborated very well on that point, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).
	Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) that the Government are not complacent about rape. As she will know, 18% of respondents to a recent London survey of 1,061 people aged 18 to 50 agreed with the statement that most claims of rape are probably not true. That is obviously a matter of great concern, which is why it is so important for the Government to continue to work hard, in partnership with other agencies, to engender a more civilised 21st-century view.

Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am afraid I cannot.
	Let me say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier, there is no evidence that defendant anonymity would have an adverse impact on reporting. Victims may well be encouraged to come forward by the understanding that the criminal justice system is likely to deal with their complaint effectively and anonymously, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult to understand how a suspect's or even a charged defendant's anonymity can have an impact.
	A more interesting suggestion relates to anonymity and previous offending by a defendant. Many people claim that defendant anonymity would prevent other victims from coming forward. Research conducted by Feist and others in 2007 suggests that being able to link an assault to another sexual assault against another victim is likely to help to secure a conviction, so the point is important.
	There is some anecdotal evidence that publicity surrounding a case has allowed more victims to come forward. The case of John Worboys is most commonly cited in that context, and was indeed cited today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). It is not clear, however, whether the defendant's name or the release of other characteristics, such as a suspect's distinctive modus operandi, is the most important factor. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, although I think the latter reached a different conclusion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke in detail about the point during an Adjournment debate on 7 June, and I know that he was grateful for the information he subsequently received from the right hon. Member for Don Valley, who spoke today with knowledge about an issue about which she cares very much.
	More generally, the overriding impression given by many Members was of the sheer complexity of the subject matter that we have been debating. We heard about the history of anonymity for defendants in rape cases, which goes back well over 30 years. During that period, the legislation has fluctuated between diametrically opposed policy positions, and it has been a talking point over a number of changes of Administration.
	As for the scope of anonymity, some Members have said that our proposals are not specific enough, while others-and, in some instances, the same ones-have said that we are wrong to include only rape, and to exclude other offences. What we are doing is delivering on coalition Government promises. The Opposition may not like that, but this is what we promised, and this is what we are going to do. I note that the Home Affairs Committee may now wish to consider the wider issues. We shall be pleased to see its report, and to engage with it and the House on those wider issues.
	Anonymity in rape cases is clearly precedented. If other offences are now to be included, we will need to review which ones. We will need to do that very carefully, not least because of the impact the arguments for press freedom will have on the scope. We will want the scope to be as narrow as possible. This is a big area and we will remain open to discussion, but it needs to be put in that context.
	The issue of anonymity for rape defendants has been bound up by some with our other coalition commitment that we will give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils. That also has a long and complex history, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, but we do not necessarily see the two situations as the same. The two commitments we have made will need to be reviewed as stand-alone issues even if their remedy may have certain similar aspects.
	I have pointed to the complexity of the historical background, but anonymity also raises some complex legal issues. In the particular context of rape, it is clear that anonymity cannot be invariable and absolute, because there may well be situations in which it should be waived. The obvious example is where a suspect needs to be apprehended, but there are others. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made a strong case for judicial involvement in waiving anonymity where relevant, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) also made some wise observations on publicity. Their experience in this area came to the fore in their valuable contributions.
	Another issue was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He asked about the situation in which the media want to publicise the fact that public authorities are reluctant to act in a case where action appears justified. Another example could be that where suspects wanted to waive their own anonymity, for example in order to establish an alibi. That would itself generate issues. Should the suspect's right of waiver be absolute, even if it could result in identifying the complainant in a case? Taking all the above into account, I hope the House understands why we have consistently made it clear that we need to address this subject carefully, keeping our options open until the time is right to made our detailed position known. That approach was clearly right, and remains so.
	The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood criticised the coalition Government commitment for containing only a broad statement of principle, but that is what it was-a broad statement of principle. We have now refined it without losing the principle, and we have always been clear that there are various ways in which the commitment could be implemented.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), for Cannock Chase, for Gillingham and Rainham, for Broxtowe, for Hexham and for Oxford West and Abingdon all in their different ways powerfully and appropriately described the real and damaging consequences of false accusation and the importance of presumption of innocence in our law. The theme of false accusation was elaborated on very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, who asked if the Government will be carrying out research into false allegations, as called for by Baroness Stern. I can advise him that that is under consideration by the relevant Departments as part of our overall response to Baroness Stern's review.
	The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned aspects of the previous Government's record on assisting rape victim support, many of which were very worthy achievements which we hope to develop. She was less forthcoming, however, about the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark noted, after a decade of Labour Government the situation for victims is still very far from what anyone in this Chamber would wish it to be. In that context, I think the Opposition may wish to consider working with us on a consensual basis, rather than adopting an aggressive approach to this serious issue. That is what the public will wish to see, I dare to say. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, we will continue to investigate those areas that still require further thought, including whether anonymity might frustrate investigations, and any other gaps.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that we will consult and seek views. However, we do not, as my hon. Friend said, see any case for holding a formal public consultation as we believe that the detailed arguments on the specific issue of rape are very well established.
	Let me conclude by saying that the Government-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3))

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Motion made,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House. - (Mr Goodwill.)

Hon. Members: Object.

FIRST WORLD WAR COMMEMORATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Goodwill.)

Damian Collins: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this Adjournment debate, whose theme is the forthcoming centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, which will fall in August 2014. It may feel as if that centenary is a little way off, but this debate is timely because today the Imperial War museum has hosted a national conference bringing together representatives of voluntary and community groups from across the country to discuss the work they can do in preparing for that centenary.
	In 1964, on the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the first world war, similar co-ordination of activity and events around the country took place. In my constituency, there was an exhibition of war paintings at the Metropole art gallery, which was hosted in conjunction with the Imperial War museum. Co-ordination also took place for the Last Night of the Proms, with music by Vaughan Williams and Britten acting as a musical commemoration of the war. Many organisations would seek a similar level of co-ordination for this forthcoming centenary between groups involved in heritage and the arts, community groups across the country and the Government.

David Burrowes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate and on mentioning the work that the Imperial War museum does. Will he also pay tribute to the work that it does to build up a national inventory of war memorials? Does he share the concern about the fact that many a war memorial is, sadly, the victim of either neglect or vandalism? Will he join me in the campaign by the War Memorials Trust to have all war memorials registered by the time of the commemoration?

Damian Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am happy to support that very worthwhile project. The television series produced by Ian Hislop, "Not Forgotten", was a good demonstration of the power of memorials, some of which had fallen into abeyance and loss. In two local projects in the villages of Lyminge and Sandgate, in my constituency, local people have decoded the war memorials, using new online materials to look up the stories of the servicemen who served in their own communities, for example, Walter Tull. He is named on the Folkestone war memorial and was the first person who was not a European white male to be commissioned into the British Army-he was commissioned in the field as a second lieutenant during the first world war. He also had the distinction of being the first black man to play in an outfield position in the English football leagues, and his story was really uncovered by a project run by the Dover War Memorial Project. It would be a wonderful way to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the war if similar projects could be launched across the country, perhaps supported by the Imperial War museum and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to give people toolkits to understand where their memorials are and the stories of the men that lie beyond them.
	We are all familiar with the fact that although the men who served in that war have passed-indeed, many of their children are probably no longer be with us-their stories remain. Part of the Chamber in which we sit today is, in some ways, a memorial to the 20 Members of this House who lost their lives on active service during that war and the many others who saw active service. One of my predecessors as the Member of Parliament for the Folkestone and Hythe area, Sir Philip Sassoon, was on active service as an officer of the East Kent Regiment, which was known as "the Buffs" during the war, and he also led a lot of the local recruitment. Many other distinguished Members of this House served in that war too. As Members of Parliament, we too can think of a fitting commemoration for that centenary.
	Today's conference at the Imperial War museum is also being attended by Ann Berry, a former mayor of Folkestone, who has worked closely with me on our own project in Folkestone, Step Short. It seeks to mark the recognition of Folkestone's role during the war. I wish to talk a little about that, because it is important to think of the centenary in terms not only of the sacrifices made by allied servicemen in the trenches on the western front and around the world, but of sites of significance in this country. Such sites were well understood in the years after the first world war, but, of course, memory has been lost.
	My friend, Professor Nick Bosanquet, who has kindly joined us in the Public Gallery this evening, has, aside from his duties at Imperial college and with the Reform think-tank, also done work on the significance of UK sites-particularly Folkestone, which was the major port of embarkation and disembarkation of about 9 million men during the war, as well as sites in Gretna and Liverpool and of major munitions production as well as other sites around the country. It is important that those stories are not forgotten.
	The anniversary of 1914 is in many ways the start of an important series of anniversaries: the outbreak of the first world war in 1914; for many in the Commonwealth and the UK, Gallipoli in 1915; the battle of the Somme in 1916; Passchendaele in 1917; and, of course, the Armistice in 1918. That theme was picked up by the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, in a recent speech he made to the institute for British-Irish studies. He said that in 2016 in particular-a significant date for Ireland-
	"the centenary of the Somme will be commemorated here in Dublin, as in Belfast, to honour the heroism of those who fought and died there, Protestant and Catholic, side by side."
	The centenary gives us a chance to remember and reflect. The significance of the first world war is great, not only because of the enormous loss of life on all sides but because that war shaped, in many ways, the politics of the 20th century and so much of the world in which we live today.
	The centenary is a good way of uncovering the human story. I was very moved last week to attend a service at Shorncliffe military cemetery in my constituency on 1 July, which is Canada day. The Canadians had many thousands of men stationed in Folkestone during the war, 296 of whom are buried in the cemetery. After the war, the people of the town promised Canada that they would look after and maintain those graves. Every year, 296 schoolchildren from the constituency sit by individual graves with individual presentations of flowers that they make to the graves as part of a service of memorial. That links the town not only to the story of the first world war but to the lives of individual servicemen, too. That is a fitting act of memorial.
	On the harbour arm of Folkestone harbour, there was a canteen maintained by Florence and Margaret Jeffrey. They ran the harbour canteen, dispensing free cups of tea and refreshments to men before the troops boarded. In the case of most people who have an ancestor who served in the first world war, that person would probably have passed through Folkestone in one way or another during that time. There is a record of 40,000 names collected in the visitors' books from those of general servicemen to those of people such as Field Marshall Haig, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill who passed through the town. With the support of Kent county council, we have started a project to create a digital record of those names and to scan each of the pages of those books. We are looking to raise funds to have that as a resource that can be accessed online by people around the world who want to search for stories of their ancestors. It will record them as being in Folkestone on a particular time, place and day during that war.
	Most of the men who were in Folkestone during the war would have assembled on the Leas, outside the Grand, which was a great society hotel in the period before the war. It was also the place where Wilfred Owen, the war poet, spent his last night in England. They would have been assembled and marched along the Leas, down a road that during the war was known as the Slope road, to the harbour before they embarked for the trenches of Belgium and France. For many of them, that would have been their last journey in England before they went to the trenches, not to return.
	That is the significance of the UK sites. Hundreds and thousands of people every year make that pilgrimage themselves to walk in the footsteps of their ancestors in the battlefields. As a schoolboy doing my GCSE studies, I made that same journey, as many people studying history as part of the national curriculum and their GCSE courses will do today. To continue shamelessly to plug my constituency's heritage links, people can start those journeys and see part of them in this country, too, without making the trip to France. They can walk, as many men did, down the Leas in Folkestone and down the road that, after the war, was renamed the Road of Remembrance as a national memorial to the sacrifices made by those men-a walk down which many people could go, retracing their steps. There are elements of our heritage, particularly as regards the first world war, that have been lost and forgotten and anything that we can do to use the centenary to reconnect people with those stories and the sacrifices that so many millions of people made during that war would be excellent.
	Will the Minister consider what support the Government could give? It need not necessarily be financial support, but could be support in co-ordinating a national day of remembrance to mark the centenary, perhaps with a national programme of events. They could work with the major galleries and museums and the regimental museums, particularly at sites with a strong interest, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has said, and work in support of the memorials themselves. That would be a particularly fitting memorial.
	I should also like to know whether the Government will consider marking a national day of remembrance, potentially in the form of a bank holiday or a part-bank holiday on the day of the centenary of the outbreak of the war. Might they consider having a permanent national bank holiday of remembrance, perhaps on Armistice day or a day of the week near to it, as other countries do? Australia and New Zealand have Anzac day as a national memorial day, and there are national memorial days in other countries, such as the United States. Perhaps it is time for us to consider making such a move, and the centenary of the first world war would be a fitting time to introduce such a national holiday or day of remembrance. If it could not be an additional holiday, perhaps there could be discussions about it replacing another bank holiday, as it might be a more fitting to have a bank holiday on that day.
	So, although Adjournment debates involve closing the proceedings of the House, my intention was to start a debate among our colleagues and people around the country who have a great interest in the historical and community significance of the first world war about how we in the country and in the House should lead the country in marking that centenary.

Julian Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this matter. He is absolutely right that there is huge interest in it, despite the long lapse of time. One reason for that is the availability of so much more information, including the online record of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission of every serviceman who lost his life in that disastrous war. Given that we spend so much time commemorating the events and triumphs of the second world war, is it not right that we should remember that twice as many were killed in the first world war as in the second, and in a smaller geographical area? So many of the political mistakes of the first world war paved the way for the second world war. Surely, therefore, we have to give it serious attention when the anniversary comes.

Damian Collins: I thank my hon. Friend for his meaningful contribution to the debate. He is absolutely right about the enormous significance of the war and that the far greater loss of life in that war is sometimes forgotten.
	In some ways, the burden of memorial falls on new generations, which is why this is a particularly important challenge for the House. There are still alive today many service veterans from the second world war and many people who have vivid memories of that war, as was seen at the 70th anniversary of Dunkirk, which was marked last month. For the first world war, those memories are not there, so there is a greater challenge for this generation and new generations to continue celebrations when those events are so much further away. I want to mark that challenge with a nod to the huge canon of literature about the first world war. Let me adapt slightly Kipling's words in his lament for his son:
	"Then hold your head up all the more,
	This tide,
	And every tide;
	Because they were the sons Britain bore,
	And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!"

Andrew Robathan: May I say how nice it is to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? This is the first occasion on which I have been in the Chamber when you have been in your place.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for drawing attention to the fact that in four short years we will be commemorating an important milestone in our nation's history-100 years since fighting broke out all over Europe that would rapidly plunge the world into its first world war.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's arrival in Parliament. He succeeds the former leader of the Conservative party and a very great parliamentarian, Michael Howard-a man for whom I have huge respect and affection. I suspect that all Conservatives will echo that sentiment. I hope that my hon. Friend will emulate Michael Howard in many ways in the course of his career, especially after dark. Perhaps he, too, will become the leader of the party and the Home Secretary, and perhaps he, too, will hold many other of the great offices that Michael Howard held.
	I was interested to see what my hon. Friend made of his victory on 6 May. Soon after the general election he wrote an article in  The Romney Marsh Times, which I assure him is weekly reading for me. He described a mixture of gratitude-something we all feel-weight of responsibility for the trust placed in him and a keen sense of anticipation for the work ahead. He related a memorable encounter on election day when a woman outside the New Romney scout hall told him:
	"We voted for you, now go and change the world for us".
	My hon. Friend wrote:
	"Changing the world is the responsibility of all new MPs, to use our position not only to champion the interests of our community in Parliament, but also to support policies that can change our society, and ultimately our world."
	I am delighted to hear a new MP elucidating such noble principles; they are the principles that should drive all of us to enter Parliament, and certainly drove my hon. Friend's predecessor, Michael Howard.
	The first world war certainly changed our world, so it is fitting that we are discussing those historic events and plans to mark them so early in the new Parliament. As an historian, I shall touch briefly on some of the chronology of the calamitous events during the apparently glorious summer of 1914 that were to lead irrevocably to war.
	On 28 June, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists. He was on his way to a hospital to visit attendants who had been injured by an anarchist bomb-something we see often in not always terribly funny sketches-thrown at his car earlier that day in a failed attempt to kill him. On the way to the hospital, the driver took a wrong turn. When he realised his mistake he began to reverse, but another Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, stepped forward and fired two shots. The first killed the archduke's pregnant wife, Sophie, almost instantly, and the second hit the archduke in the neck, and he died a short while later. So much trouble after taking a wrong turn and then making a U-turn; it is not a joking matter, but it could be a lesson to us all.
	Exactly a month later, on 28 July, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and events moved quickly. On 1 August, the French and Germans mobilised and Germany declared war against Russia. On 3 August, Germany declared war on France and broke the 1839 treaty of London by invading Belgium on 4 August. As a result, later that day the British Cabinet voted almost unanimously to declare war.
	The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, memorably said as he stood at the window of the Foreign Office, across the road from his house, watching the lamps being lit as dusk approached:
	"The lamps are going out all over Europe: we shall not see them lit again in our time."
	In fact, he and the nation would see the lamps lit again, but the intervening slaughter was unimaginable.
	Fatalities in the British imperial forces alone totalled more than 1 million, with more than 2 million wounded. Overall, it is reckoned that by the time the first world war ended in November 1918 it had caused 37 million casualties, military and civilian, of whom about 16 million were fatalities. As my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) have pointed out, it was not the war to end all wars, but its scale robbed this country of a generation of young men.
	Each year since, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, those who served in the great war and the generations who followed have stood in silent respect for the sacrifice. On the 50th anniversary of the start of the great war, in 1964, the BBC produced a majestic documentary series, "The Great War", which was a small-screen alternative to tributes in stone and bronze. Some of us, including I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, watched those programmes. It was a brilliant series, made in black and white, and I suspect that the BBC will sensibly re-release it in four years' time.
	Many of those who served in the first world war were able to return to northern France and Belgium to pay their respects to their fallen comrades. Alas, as we know, the last active UK combatants in the great war passed away last year so there will be no further trips for those who fought in the first world war.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about plans to mark the centenary. The Government have no specific plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend will understand that I speak as a Defence Minister and now, because everybody who served is dead, we view the first world war as a historic, heritage event, so we shall talk to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the museums my hon. Friend mentioned to see what plans they may have.
	It remains, in my opinion, hugely important to remember the sacrifices that were made in the great war. It affected the whole country-every family, almost without exception. Certainly I suspect that hon. Members present will have family members who died in the first world war. My mother's uncle was killed on the Somme, my father's uncle was killed at Gallipoli, and many other members of my family, as was the case with every family, served in the first world war.
	As we did with the 90th anniversary of the Armistice in 2008 when our last three serving personnel, Henry Allingham, Harry Patch and Bill Stone, laid wreaths in a poignant ceremony at the Cenotaph, we will certainly remember in 2014 with great poignancy the 100th anniversary. Twelve months after that commemoration of the 90th anniversary, we remembered the passing of the entire world war one generation in a service in Westminster abbey attended by the Queen-that was last year. Our children, and their children, who have grown up without the threat or shadow of world war, need to be taught how the freedoms they take for granted were won, and at such heavy cost. I would say to my hon. Friend that I think more than anything else this centenary should be one of education-education in schools, and with everybody taking part, so that nobody forgets.
	We will be discussing with colleagues across Whitehall, particularly in DCMS, how the centenary may be commemorated, and we will work with other interested parties, such as the Imperial War museum, to develop a co-ordinated approach to ensure that the centenary is given the highest possible profile. My hon. Friend mentioned the meeting today at the Imperial War museum, and I understand it is prepared to lead the national commemoration of the centenary of 1914 and has already appointed a programme manager. It will create digital resources for education and ensure that all events, activities and exhibitions relating to the centenary achieve the highest possible profile. Forty-five organisations attended the conference today, and more are now expected to join.
	There is also a need to recognise the significance of the first world war globally, because it was, obviously, a world war. The Imperial War museum is establishing a series of international collaborations with organisations such as the Smithsonian and Les Invalides. We will of course do likewise with our international partners. The UK Government and our partners are well used to marking such important occasions. Traditionally in Britain, we mark the end of a conflict, but we understand the historic significance of this centenary and the additional poignancy and we expect that to be reflected in widespread media and public interest.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for the suggestions that he has made. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that I am a great believer in keeping up war memorials, so that we do remember and do not forget. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made some very sensible points about the second and first world wars.
	I am quite a believer in bank holidays-frankly, the more the merrier-but I do not think it would be appropriate to press for an additional bank holiday to commemorate the first world war, given that the day in 1914 ultimately resulted in millions being sent to their deaths and millions more injured. We will look at the other suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made closely, and plans are emerging to commemorate this important and sombre event in a fitting way, although precisely what form it will take we cannot yet say.
	I can say this, however, and I say it from the heart. We will not forget the duty we have as a nation to commemorate properly all those who fought in the great war, and to reflect on the sacrifice that they were prepared to make. If for no other reason, younger generations and generations to follow must never forget what their forefathers did on their behalf, in the hope that younger generations are spared the horrors that our fathers' and grandfathers' generations endured.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.